Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
A case that came up for hearing recently went on to prove how excessive work pressure can have an adverse impact even on the work of judges,and as a consequence,wreak havoc in the life of a petitioner.
In this case,a judge skipped an order from a Sessions Court setting free an accused in a forgery case and issued a non-bailable warrant against him. Later,he admitted it was on account of excessive work that he missed the relevant order,directing him to take note that the man had been exonerated of all charges.
Hemant Kumar was an accused,along with three others,in a case of cheating and forgery registered in March 1996. A magistrate held there was prima facie evidence and framed penal charges against him.
Kumar,however,approached a Sessions Court through a revision petition. Additional Sessions Judge H S Sharma held there was no legal evidence to frame charges against Kumar and ordered that he be exonerated of all charges on July 11,2008. The order was also sent to the magistrate for his knowledge.
Almost a year after the reprieve,the past came back to haunt Kumar,this time due to an oversight on the part of the magistrate. After he failed to show up in court,the magistrate,trying the case for the other three accused,took a stern view of his non-appearance and issued a non-bailable warrant against him on April 24.
Consequently,Kumar was arrested by Crime Branch sleuths near Moti Nagar. He tried his best to persuade the police personnel but to no avail. It is a courts order and we cannot do anything – they said.
Kumar was subsequently produced in the court at Tis Hazari last Thursday. His family had arranged a lawyer for him.
During the hearing,Kumar expressed his astonishment over his arrest and requested that the court read the case file once again. The file had the order by the Sessions Court stating that the case against him was discharged. He also referred to an order by the trial court last September,in which the previous magistrate had accepted the order by the higher court. Kumars counsel also moved an application for his release.
The magistrate admitted the mistake. Due to oversight,the said order (of discharge) could not be noticed and on April 28,this court issued a non-bailable warrant against the accused for his appearance in court. The said order was passed due to ignorance and oversight and due to heavy rush of work by this court, he said.
He promptly ordered Kumar’s release. Taken aback by his own error,the magistrate said: The reader and record keeper are directed to note in red ink in the chargesheet regarding the discharge of the accused along with the date of the order in the chargesheet so that the same can be easily noticed by the court.
According to official data submitted in the Assembly,12 lakh cases are pending in various courts of Delhi.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
