Though the judge assigned reasons retaining file of a case after demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety

The contention is the judge has delivered a detailed judgment after he demitted his office

5. One of the contentions raised in these appeals is that on 17th April, 2017, the learned Single Judge pronounced only one line order declaring the operative part. The learned Judge demitted office on 26th May, 2017 and a detailed judgment was made available only on 23rd October, 2017, nearly 5 months after the learned Judge demitted the office. On these facts, there is no dispute.

Though the judge assigned reasons retaining file of a case after demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety

6. The operative part was pronounced on 17th April, 2017. There were five weeks available for the learned 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 learned Judge demitted the office. Thus, it is obvious that even after the learned Judge demitted the office, he assigned reasons and made the judgment ready. According to us, retaining file of a case for a period of 5 months after demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety on the part of the learned Judge. We cannot countenance what has been done in this case.

8. 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.

9. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment in Criminal O.P.No.21243/2014 and Criminal Revision Case No.1191/2015 in Criminal M.P.No.3613/2014 in CC No.03/2014 and restore both the matters to the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. Both the cases shall be decided by the High Court afresh in accordance with law.

Party

STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI CHENNAI … APPELLANT(S) VS. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL & ANR. … RESPONDENT(S) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.829-830 OF 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) Nos.2210-2211 of 2024 @ Diary No.29911 of 2018) – 2024 INSC 120 – February 13, 2024

direct link to the judgment click here