Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 120
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.829-830 OF 2024
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) Nos.2210-2211 of 2024
@ Diary No.29911 of 2018)
STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CBI CHENNAI ... APPELLANT(S)
VS.
NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S.OKA, J.
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondents.
4. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court
decided two proceedings by the impugned judgment. The
first was a petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the charge sheet in
CC No.3 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned
Signature Not Verified
Special Judge, CBI cases, Chennai. The second was a
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2024.02.19
17:32:47 IST
Reason:
Criminal Revision Application challenging the order
Criminal Appeals @ Diary No.29911/2018 Page 1 of 4
th
dated 4 August, 2015 by which an application for
discharge made by the respondents in the same case was
rejected by the impugned judgment. The learned Judge
quashed the charge sheet, insofar as the first respondent
th
is concerned and by setting aside the order dated 4
August, 2015, an order of discharge was passed as regards
another accused.
5. One of the contentions raised in these appeals is
th
that on 17 April, 2017, the learned Single Judge
pronounced only one line order declaring the operative
th
part. The learned Judge demitted office on 26 May, 2017
rd
and a detailed judgment was made available only on 23
October, 2017, nearly 5 months after the learned Judge
demitted the office. On these facts, there is no
dispute.
th
6. The operative part was pronounced on 17 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,
Criminal Appeals @ Diary No.29911/2018 Page 2 of 4
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.
7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents tried to urge that we should independently
hear the case on merits.
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.
10. Needless to add that we have made no adjudication
on the merits of the controversy and all issues are left
open to be decided by the High Court. If there are any
Criminal Appeals @ Diary No.29911/2018 Page 3 of 4
subsequent events, the parties are free to bring it to
the notice of the High Court in accordance with law.
11. The appeals are accordingly partly allowed.
..........................J.
(ABHAY S.OKA)
..........................J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
February 13, 2024.
Criminal Appeals @ Diary No.29911/2018 Page 4 of 4