2007 (10) TMI 706 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of non-bailable warrants and process u/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.
2. Observations and conduct of the trial court.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.
4. Judicial discipline and adherence to High Court orders.

Summary:

1. Validity of Non-Bailable Warrants and Process u/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner sought quashing of orders dated 31st May, 2007, and 25th July, 2007, by the Addl. Sessions Judge, which issued non-bailable warrants and process u/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against him. The High Court initially stayed the execution of these processes provided the petitioner deposited Rs. 2,500/- as adjournment costs and appeared before the trial court on 19th September, 2007. The trial court, however, rejected the bail application and took the petitioner into custody, despite the High Court's order.

2. Observations and Conduct of the Trial Court:
The trial court's comments were deemed uncalled for and cast aspersions on the High Court's functioning. The trial court's observation that there was no cause of action for the High Court's stay order was incorrect, as the process u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. was not executed in accordance with the law.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.:
The trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. The proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was issued on 27th July, 2007, directing the petitioner to appear on 29th August, 2007, but the proclamation was only effected on 6th August, 2007, giving less than the required thirty days for the petitioner to appear. Similarly, the proclamation u/s 83 Cr.P.C. was issued on 27th July, 2007, but was only effected on 29th August, 2007, the same day the petitioner was supposed to appear. The trial court's haste to declare the petitioner a proclaimed offender without following due process was evident.

4. Judicial Discipline and Adherence to High Court Orders:
The trial court's actions amounted to judicial indiscipline and disobedience of the High Court's order. The Addl. Sessions Judge lacked basic knowledge of the Code of Criminal Procedure and made inappropriate comments on the High Court's order. The High Court directed that the Addl. Sessions Judge undergo a refresher course at the Delhi Judicial Academy and submit a performance report.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the orders issued by the trial court u/s 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and directed the Registrar General to send copies of the judgment to all Judicial Officers of Delhi for guidance. The trial court record was ordered to be sent back forthwith.