Trial Court Judge's Conduct Of Blindly Signing Hand Written Order Sheets By Clerk Cannot Be Appreciated: Madhya Pradesh HC
|The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that the conduct of the trial court in blindly signing handwritten order sheets by a clerk “cannot be appreciated.”
The Court directed the Sessions Court to investigate the circumstances under which the order sheets were written and signed by the trial court. The Bench directed that if the trial court is found negligent, the report must be submitted to the Chief Justice of the High Court for administrative action. If the investigation also finds that the clerk was responsible for the incorrect order sheets, the Sessions Court was instructed to initiate departmental proceedings against the clerk.
A Single Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed, “The order sheets dated 24.02.2024, 09.03.2024 and 23.03.2024 are hand written, whereas the other order sheets are typed. Thus, it is clear that whatever order sheets were dictated by the trial Court were duly typed but it appears that order sheets dated 24.02.2024, 09.03.2024 and 23.03.2024 were written by the clerk, which were blindly signed by the trial Court…This conduct of the trial Court cannot be appreciated.”
Advocate Shafiqullah appeared for the petitioner, while P.P. K.S. Baghel represented the respondent.
The accused had filed a fourth application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for the grant of bail. Though the chargesheet was filed in 2023, the counsel for the accused sought adjournments for the arguments before framing of charges from 2024. However, on three distinct occasions, the Court repeatedly marked the absence of prosecution witnesses and adjourned the matter for recording evidence.
As per to the allegations levelled against the accused, he was the “mastermind” in mortgaging the vehicles after taking them on rent. Considering these allegations, as well as the counsel's unwillingness to argue on the aspect of framing of charges before trial court.
The Court deemed it fit to deny the fourth bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC. The court also opined that there was no delay on the part of the prosecution
The Bench stated, “It is the counsel for the accused including the applicant, who were responsible for not arguing the case on the question of framing of charges as well as the fact that the co-accused has also absconded, no case is made out for grant of bail.”
Consequently, the Bench directed, “The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal is directed to conduct an enquiry that under what circumstances, the order sheets dated 24.02.2024, 09.03.2024 and 23.03.2024 were written and signed by the trial Court and if it is found that the trial Court was negligent, then he is directed to place the said report before Hon’ble The Chief Justice for action on administrative side”
The Court further ordered, “If the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal also comes to a conclusion that the concerning clerk was also responsible for writing incorrect order sheets, then he shall initiate departmental proceedings against him.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the application.
Cause Title: Ranjeet Singh Johal v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh