The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ordered an investigation against a trial court judge and clerk after discovering that the court had negligently scheduled a cheating case for recording evidence instead of framing charges on multiple occasions [Ranjeet Singh Sohal v. State of Madhya Pradesh].
Justice GS Ahluwalia, while hearing a bail plea from the accused, was informed about the significant delay in the trial.
Upon reviewing the trial court’s order sheets, the High Court found that some were typed while others were handwritten. It noted that the trial court had incorrectly scheduled the matter for recording evidence more than once.
The Court observed that the handwritten order sheets were likely written by a clerk and blindly signed by the judge.
“The order sheets dated 24.02.2024, 09.03.2024, and 23.03.2024 are handwritten, 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,” the Court said.
The Court disapproved of the judge’s conduct in negligently signing handwritten order sheets written by the clerk.
As a result, it directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal, to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances under which the handwritten order sheets were written and signed by the trial court.
“If it is found that the trial Court was negligent, then he is directed to place the said report before the Chief Justice for action on the administrative side. If the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal, also concludes that the concerned clerk was responsible for writing incorrect order sheets, then he shall initiate departmental proceedings against him,” the Court ordered.
Regarding the bail, the Court noted that the accused was the mastermind behind an operation involving renting vehicles and then mortgaging them. A case under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him.
Considering these allegations, as well as the defense counsel’s unwillingness to argue the framing of charges before the trial court, the High Court decided to deny bail. It also noted that there was no delay on the part of the prosecution.
“The case was fixed for 27.06.2024, and on that date, one of the co-accused, Ankit Sharma, went absconding, his bail bonds were canceled, and an arrest warrant was issued. Thus, it is clear that there is no delay on the part of the prosecution, and even the co-accused has absconded. Considering the nature of allegations against the applicant, who was the mastermind in mortgaging the vehicles after taking them on rent, coupled with the fact that it is the counsel for the accused, including the applicant, who were responsible for not arguing the case on the question of framing charges as well as the fact that the co-accused has also absconded, no case is made out for the grant of bail,” the Court said while dismissing the bail plea.
Advocate Shafiqullah appeared for the accused.
Advocate KS Baghel appeared for the State.
