Trial court must ensure conviction judgment is ready before declaring accused guilty: Delhi High Court

Trial courts should pronounce a decision to convict the accused in a criminal case only after their conviction judgment is actually ready for pronouncement, the Delhi High Court recently emphasised [Munna Singh and Anr. v. State of Delhi and Ors.]..Justice Navin Chawla made the observation while dealing with a case where a trial court had ordered two men to be taken into custody even before the judgment convicting them was ready to be pronounced. The High Court has now asked all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi to sensitise judicial officers to prevent such lapses in future."The learned Principal District and Sessions Judges of all the Districts Courts in Delhi are requested to sensitize the presiding judicial officers to pronounce their judgments on conviction only when they are ready for pronouncement," the Court ordered.The judge also stressed that if the accused is convicted and taken into custody after the judgment is pronounced, a free copy of the judgment must be given to the accused right away so they can pursue any legal remedies..The Court was dealing with a petition filed by two men (petitioners) who claimed that they were convicted and taken into custody on the directions of a trial court, without any order being pronounced or supplied to either them or their lawyers. .The High Court found that there was material to indicate that on May 18, when the petitioners were convicted and taken into custody, the judgement convicting them was not ready with the trial court. "if the judgement was ready, there was no reason for the learned Trial Court to put the case for supplying copy thereof to the petitioners on 22.05.2024," the High Court reasoned. The conviction order was only uploaded later, on May 21, on the court website.The High Court further took note of the submission that the petitioners had tried to get a copy of the May 18 judgment by submitting an application on May 20. However, the trial court did not take the application on record and instead orally said that the judgment would be available by May 23..The Court found that these lapses by the trial court were violative of the procedure outlined in Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for the pronouncement of judgments.The Court held that providing a copy of the judgment to the accused or their lawyer is crucial as it allows the accused to avail the remedy of appeal against a judgment or order of conviction immediately, without awaiting the order on sentence. The accused also needs to understand why they are being convicted and their liberty being taken away, the High Court explained. .The Court added that in the present case, taking the accused into custody without providing them with a copy of the judgement reflected inappropriate conduct by the trial court."In the present case, not making available a copy of the judgment on conviction to the accused, and taking them into custody, in my view, therefore, was inappropriate on the part of the learned Trial Court and denial of not only a Statutory Right but also a Constitutional Right to the accused, as the judgment was not read as a whole in open court," the May 22 High Court order said..However, the High Court agreed with the State's submission that such a procedural lapse should not be grounds to vitiate or set aside the conviction judgment altogether. The Court, therefore, disposed of the petitions without setting aside the conviction. The Court clarified that the petitioners may invoke other legal remedies to challenge their conviction. "Now that the said judgment is available with the petitioners as also has been stated to be uploaded on the website, the present petition is disposed of reserving all liberty with the petitioners to avail of such remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law," the Court said. .However, the Court has ordered that a copy of this order be sent to the Inspecting Judges Committee of the trial court judge who dealt with the petitioners' case. Further, a copy of the order was ordered to be sent to the Principal District and Sessions Judges of all Delhi district courts, so that judicial officers can be sensitised and such errors can be avoided in future. .Advocates Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, Renu, Manya Mishra, Dipak Raj Singh, Yashvardhan and Shivani Verma appeared for the petitioners..Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Amol Sinha, advocates Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, and Zhavi Lazarus appeared for the State. Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman and Advocates Shashank Garg and Aradhya Chaturvedi represented the Registrar General of Delhi High Court. .[Read Order]