2020 (10) TMI 53 - HC - Indian Laws

Application of early hearing - Leave to appeal - Dishonor of Cheque - trial of Scheduled Offence - acuittal of respondents - whether the petitions for leave to appeal should be heard at an early date or not? HELD THAT - The interest of justice demands that so far as possible, part-heard matters should not be left inconclusive and if the Bench has the time to hear further arguments, those should be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible - Great pains have been taken by the learned counsels for the respondents to explain to this court that there are other matters which require the attention of this court. In some of the cases, convicts are languishing in jail and their appeals should be heard and decided first. It is good on the part of the learned counsels for the respondents to apprise this Court that how it should proceed with the cases pending in the court but let the learned counsels be also reminded of the fact that they being the officers of this Court, should assist in part-heard cases so that these are not left undecided and need not be heard afresh by a new Bench, thus, causing unnecessary loss to the public exchequer and wastage of judicial time. It is reiterated that this Court is conscious of its duty and welcomes the suggestions given by the learned counsels but at the same time, is of the opinion that it is in the interest of administration of justice that so far as possible, this Court should make all endeavours to conclude the part-heard matters before it demits the office. The judicial discipline demands that the Judge should do his duty and must not succumb to pessimism and it is not expected from him to sit leisurely with his pen down and to say that he will not hear the cases because the record is voluminous and the time at his disposal is limited. It will be a folly not to make an attempt and to sit idle abdicating one s duty. It is advisable to perform one s duty irrespective of the fact whatever conclusion the petitions reach. This Court, therefore, will not fail in its duty and expects all the learned counsels to cooperate and assist this Court in deciding the matters expeditiously. The applications moved for early hearing of the leave petitions are allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Early hearing of criminal leave petitions.
2. Acquittal of respondents under various sections of PMLA, IPC, and Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Impact of COVID-19 on court proceedings.
4. Applicability of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
5. Voluminous nature of records and feasibility of video conferencing for hearings.
6. Public interest and urgency in hearing the petitions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Early Hearing of Criminal Leave Petitions:
The petitioners, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Directorate of Enforcement (ED), sought early hearing of criminal leave petitions against the judgment dated 21st December 2017, which acquitted all respondents. The applications were filed to expedite the hearing due to the part-heard status of Crl.L.P.185/2018 and the urgency of the matter. The court acknowledged the detailed part arguments already heard and emphasized the need to conclude part-heard matters expeditiously to avoid wastage of judicial time and public resources.

2. Acquittal of Respondents Under Various Sections of PMLA, IPC, and Prevention of Corruption Act:
The petitions involved charges under Section 3 of PMLA, Sections 420/409/468/471/193 IPC read with Section 120B IPC, and Sections 7/11/12/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners argued that the Special Court failed to appreciate the clinching evidence and that the acquittal adversely affected the Government of India's interest. The court noted that the acquittal fortified the presumption of innocence but highlighted the necessity to review the voluminous records and evidence presented.

3. Impact of COVID-19 on Court Proceedings:
The respondents opposed early hearing, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and the impracticality of physical hearings. They argued that only urgent matters were being taken up via video conferencing, and the voluminous nature of the records made it difficult to argue effectively. The court, however, emphasized that it had been conducting hearings through video conferencing since April 2020 and that advanced technology facilitated effective communication and argumentation.

4. Applicability of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018:
The respondents raised the issue of the applicability of the amended Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, which needed to be adjudicated. The court acknowledged this as part of the arguments to be addressed but did not consider it a barrier to proceeding with the hearing of the leave petitions.

5. Voluminous Nature of Records and Feasibility of Video Conferencing for Hearings:
The respondents highlighted the extensive evidence and lengthy judgments, arguing that it would be challenging to refer to the entire record via video conferencing. The court, however, dismissed this concern, stating that it had handled voluminous cases through video conferencing and that modern technology allowed for effective argumentation despite the record's size.

6. Public Interest and Urgency in Hearing the Petitions:
The petitioners argued that the matter held great public importance, involving government integrity and financial implications. The court agreed that the urgency lay in preventing the wastage of judicial time and public resources by concluding part-heard matters. It emphasized the need to hear and decide the petitions expeditiously, given the detailed arguments already presented and the limited time available before the judge's retirement.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the applications for early hearing, scheduling the petitions for 5th October 2020 on a day-to-day basis. It assured all parties of a fair hearing and emphasized the importance of judicial duty and efficient case management, especially in part-heard matters. The decision underscored the court's commitment to concluding cases expeditiously, despite the challenges posed by the pandemic and the voluminous nature of the records.