Madhya Pradesh High Court orders probe after Trial Judge "blindly" signs order sheet handwritten by clerk

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ordered enquiry against a trial court judge and clerk after finding out that the court on repeated dates had negligently posted a cheating case for recording of evidence instead of framing of charges [Ranjeet Singh Sohal v. State of Madhya Pradesh]..While hearing a bail plea moved by the accused-applicant, Justice GS Ahluwalia was informed about the considerable delay in trial.On examining the order sheets by trial court, the High Court noted that some order sheets were typed while rest were handwritten. It also saw that the trial court had wrongly posted the matter for recording of evidence on more then one occasion.The Court was of the view that the handwritten order sheets were written by clerk and was blindly signed by the judge."The order sheets dated 24.02.2024, 09.03.2024 and 23.03.2024 are hand written, 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 the conduct of the judge for negligently signing handwritten order sheets written by clerk. Therefore, it directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal to conduct an enquiry into the circumstances in 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 Chief Justice for action on administrative side and if the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal also comes to a conclusion that the concerning (sic) clerk was also responsible for writing incorrect order sheets, then he shall initiate departmental proceedings against him," the Court ordered..On the aspect of bail, the Court noted that accused-applicant was the mastermind behind an operation of taking vehicles on rent and then mortgaging them. A case under Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him.Considering these allegations, as well as the counsel's unwillingness to argue on the aspect of framing of charges before trial court, the High Court deemed it fit to deny bail. It also noted that there was no delay on the part of prosecution."The case was fixed for 27.06.2024 and on the said date one of the co-accused Ankit Sharma went absconding and his bail bonds have been cancelled and arrest warrant has been 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 it 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 of charges as well as the fact that the co-accused has also absconded, no case is made out for grant of bail," the Court said while dismissing the bail plea..Advocate Shafiqullah appeared for the accused.Advocate KS Baghel appeared for State..[Read Order]