Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has taken exception to a Madras High Court's order in which the judge pronounced one line operative portion on April 17, 2017 and gave the detailed reasonings five months after demitting the office, observing such an act of impropriety cannot be countenanced.

"We cannot support such acts of impropriety and, therefore, in our view, the only option for this court is to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the cases to the High Court for a fresh decision," a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said.

The court cited what Lord Hewart said hundred years back that "justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done".

"What has been done in this case is contrary to what Lord Hewart said. We cannot support such acts of impropriety and, therefore, in our view, the only option for this court is to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the cases to the High Court for a fresh decision," the bench said.

In the instant case, the CBI filed criminal appeals against the High Court's orders quashing charge sheet in case of one accused and allowing discharge in case of another accused.

 

The court noted one of the contentions raised in these appeals is that on 17th April, 2017, the Single Judge pronounced only one line order declaring the operative part. The Judge demitted office on 26th May, 2017 and a detailed judgment was made available only on 23rd October, 2017, nearly five months after the Judge demitted the office.

The operative part was pronounced on April 17, 2017. 

“There were five weeks available for the Judge to release the reasoned judgment till the date on which he demitted office. However, the detailed judgment running into more than 250 pages has come out after a lapse of 5 months from the date on which the Judge demitted the office. Thus, it is obvious that even after the Judge demitted the office, he assigned reasons and made the judgment ready," the bench noted.

The court, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and restored both the matters to the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. 

The bench ordered that both the cases should be decided by the High Court afresh in accordance with law.

"Needless to add that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the controversy and all issues are left open to be decided by the High Court. If there are any subsequent events, the parties are free to bring it to the notice of the High Court in accordance with law," the bench clarified.