Delhi High Court Criticises Trial Judge for Five-Month Delay in Delivering Verdict

The Delhi High Court has taken a serious view of a trial judge failing to deliver a judgment for nearly five months after the hearing in a criminal case was completed and the verdict was reserved.

Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed that once a trial is over and judgment is reserved, courts cannot keep the matter in uncertainty. She said judicial proceedings should not remain in a state of readiness without an actual decision, especially after the case has been fully heard.

The High Court was hearing a petition related to a case registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The accused had requested that the matter be sent back to the same judge who had earlier heard the final arguments and reserved the judgment.

It was noted that after the verdict was reserved, the case was listed six times for pronouncement. However, the judgment was not delivered. The reasons cited included the physical absence of the accused on certain dates and the trial court seeking clarifications from the investigating officer.

Before the judgment could be pronounced, the judge who had heard the case was transferred. The successor judge was then asked to rehear the final arguments. This led the accused to approach the High Court, arguing that a fresh hearing would only cause unnecessary delay.

The High Court agreed with the petitioner. It held that once final arguments are fully heard, the judge who reserved the verdict is duty-bound to pronounce it. Sending the case to a new judge for rehearing defeats settled legal principles, delays justice, and places an avoidable burden on the successor judge.

The Court also highlighted the human impact of such delays. The petitioner had already spent more than five years in jail as an undertrial prisoner. Rehearing the case would only prolong the period of uncertainty and incarceration.

Justice Sharma stressed that criminal courts must balance procedure with substantive justice. While procedural fairness is important, it should not result in prolonged hardship for accused persons, especially those in custody.

The Court further referred to directions issued by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, which require judges to pronounce reserved judgments before being relieved on transfer. Allowing exceptions on weak grounds would weaken these directions and create uncertainty in the judicial process.

It was also pointed out that under Section 258 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, judgments in criminal trials are required to be delivered within 45 days after completion of the trial.

Concluding that rehearing the case would violate the right to a speedy trial, the High Court transferred the matter back to the judge who had originally reserved the verdict and directed him to pronounce the judgment.