Sumeet Sofat vs State Of Uttarakhand

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The revisionist before this Court is an accused, facing the trial for commission of an offence under Section 376, 377 IPC, which is pending considerations before the Sessions Court as of now, by way of Sessions Trial No. 228 of 2010, State v. Sumeet Sofat, in pursuance to the orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C482 Application No. 148 of 2019, as rendered on 26th July 2019.

"In these circumstances, the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.T. No.228 of 2010, State Vs. Dr. Sumeet Sofat and another is hereby transferred from the court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Dehradun. Before going further, the learned Sessions Judge will appoint another Amicus Curiae, who will pursue the case of Dr. Sumeet Sofat.

Since the matter is pending for the last nine years, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

The brief genesis of the controversy, which emerges for consideration for this Court is, that the present revisionist (in person) earlier has invoked the jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing a Criminal Application, before this Court being C482 No. 148 of 2019, Dr. Sumeet Sofat v. State of Uttarakhand, which the revisionist had invoked feeling himself aggrieved by the order dated 3rd December 2018, by virtue of which the amicus, which was provided to him, has withdrawn himself from the proceedings before the Court below. Thus his case was that by the said order, he was deprived of any legal aid to put up his case in defence, and that despite request no legal aid by way of appointment of Amicus Curiae was provided to him. As a consequence thereto, when the challenge was given under the said premise, that consequential effect of withdrawal of amicus would deprive him of his opportunity to defend his case the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by way of an interim arrangement by an order dated 28th January 2019, had stayed the proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 288 of 2010, State v. Dr. Sumeet Sofat and another, pending before 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun.

While the said C482 Application, as aforesaid was pending consideration, the matter yet again came up for consideration before the another co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and the another co-ordinate Bench of this Court, had issued the following directions vide its judgement/order dated 26.07.2019, following wider directions were issued:-

(i) The Sessions Judge would provide an amicus to the revisionist to pursue the Sessions Trial so as to enable him to defend himself.

(ii) That the Session Trial No. 228 of 2010, State v. Dr. Sumeet Sofat and another, was directed to be transferred from the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge where it was pending then to the Court of Sessions Judge, Dehradun. Sessions Court was directed to appoint another Amicus Curiae.

(iii) Being conscious that the matter is pending consideration for trial for last 9 years, the direction was there to decide the same expeditiously within a period of one year from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

In pursuance to the judgement and order dated 26th July 2019, it is an admitted case of the revisionist that the proceedings of the Sessions Trial was transferred by the Sessions Judge to the Court of Fast Track Court, Special Court/Additional District Sessions Judge and the said Court was ceased with the matter till the passing of a fresh order by this Court in C482 Application No. 2617 of 2019 on 26th November 2019, whereby specific direction was issued to the Sessions Judge to conduct the trial himself as per earlier direction dated 26.07.2019.

The grievance raised by the revisionist herein in the present criminal revision is a challenge given to the order dated 20th November 2019, as passed by the Sessions Court on the two applications, which have been filed by the revisionist before it being application paper numbers 392 (ka) and 393 (ka). Apart from challenging the order, rejecting the aforesaid two applications of the revisionist in the present revision, the revisionist has also modulated his prayer in the following manner :-

"That this Criminal Revision is first application/petition moved by Revisionist, moved for quashing/setting aside the Impugned Trial Court order passed 20.11.2019, where the trial Court illegally dismissed two applications moved by Revisionist on 20.11.2019 (Annexures 4 & 50, with further prayer that these two applications be allowed (Annexures No. 4 & 5) & Ld. Session Judge, Dehradun be kindly directed to conduct fair trial himself, as previously directed by this Hon'ble Court on 26.07.2019, (Annexure No.3), with further prayer that Ld. Trial Judge, Shri Anirudh Bhatt, ADJ-FTC, Dehradun, be punished for committing judicial impropriety & judicial indiscipline of the highest degree, while openly & wilfully defying Judicial orders of this Hon'ble UKHC, 9Annexures No. 1,2,3)."

As far as the relief sought for in his application, filed before the Sessions Court, being application paper number 393(ka), the prayer of the revisionist was that the proceedings of the Sessions Trial, may be deferred till the consideration of his three applications under Section 482 by this Court, being application C482 No. 149 of 2019, C482 No. 150 of 2019, and C482 No. 151 of 2019, which was then a subject matter of consideration in his C482 applications by this Court, which he has contended before the Sessions Trial that various issues are still pending consideration in C482 applications before this Court. In a nutshell, the application paper number 393(ka) dated 28th November 2019, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.11.2019 under challenge, in fact, it would amount to be in a manner a denial of adjournment or deferment of hearings by the Sessions Court as sought for by the revisionist by his application. This Court is of the view that the rejection of the said application paper No. 393 (ka) by the impugned order under challenges before this Court will be absolutely an interlocutory order as it was not deciding a lis, or deciding any issue which could determine a right, and hence I am of the opinion that as against the said order rejecting the adjournment application, the bar of sub Section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will come into play, and hence the said part of the order, rejecting his adjournment application on the pretext of pendency of the C482 applications will not amount to be an order which could be made as subject matter of scrutiny in the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of powers contained under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hence the said part of judgement is confirmed, the revision stands dismissed qua the rejection of application paper No. 393(ka). As far as rejection of the said application by the impugned order under challenge is concerned, the same is hereby affirmed.

Now, comes the consideration of the issue and which has been harped upon by the revisionist in person, the consideration of the application made by him by way of application paper number 392(ka), filed by the revisionist before the Sessions Court, praying for the following reliefs:-

"SUBJECT - APPLICATION for commencing trial afresh, from the date amicus-curie was withdrawn from my defence i.e., from 3 December, 2018 onwards, strictly in the presence of my amicus curie (defence counsel), as directed by Hon'ble UKHS, while finally allowing C-482 No. 148 of 2019, as trial is vitiated post 3 December, 2018, as it took place in absence of defence counsel (Amicus-curie). Following reliefs are sought:-

A/ Kindly Re-hear all applications moved by applicant & decide them only after hearing arguments of applicant & his defence counsel.

B Kindly allow applicant to complete his defence evidence by summoning remaining DWs in presence of defence counsel.

C/ Kindly allow applicant to exhibit his defence documents after taking them on case file, in presence of defence counsel.

D/ Kindly allow applicant to complete his statement/evidence under oath u/s 315 CrPC, in presence of defence counsel."

The learned Trial Court, which was ceased with the matter at the relevant point of time, had considered the application paper number 392 (ka), and had rejected the same on the premise that first, that there was no such directions which has been issued by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while passing the order dated 26th July 2019, for consideration afresh of any proceedings which was pending before the Sessions Court prior to the withdrawal of an amicus i.e. on 3rd December 2018, because the order, as such, is silent on that. Secondly, the order of scrutinizing, particularly a reference may be had in para 7 of the application, it is not that the revisionist had been deprived of leading his case in order to establish his innocence of his alleged involvement in the commission of an offence, for which he was being tried by the Sessions Court, because he has already recorded that as many as 25 witnesses in defence have already been examined, by the Court, hence the Court held that the prayer as made by the revisionist in clause (a) for rehearing the applications as moved by the applicant in order to provide him a complete opportunity of defence, stands met with by giving him an ample of opportunities to examined the witnesses, which he has sought to adduced before the Sessions Court. Lastly, he submits that the reference be made to paragraph 12 of the orders with regards to the circulars issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, being letter No. 7242 dated 7th November 2019, issuing general directions to the subordinate Courts that all the proceedings, which are pending prior to 2010, are directed to be heard on day-to-day basis. It is in consonance to the said directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and apart from it, regulating the procedures before the subordinate Courts by an administrative order, passed by the Chief Justice, cannot be made as a subject matter of scrutiny in a revision under Section 397 or in an application filed by the revisionist before the Sessions Court, until and unless the said administrative order itself is put to challenge in an independent constitutional proceedings.

Since the impugned order dated 28th November 2019, was confined to an adjudication, made on an application paper numbers 392 (ka) and 393 (ka), filed for consideration on judicial side, and the order thereby rendered by the Additional District and Sessions Judge on those applications was a judicial order, it could have been only scrutinised judicially by the superior Courts, which the revisionist has sought to be done by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. A judicial officer, who is exercising his judicial powers under a statute, if he renders a judgement, that judgement might be right or wrong that could only be made a subject matter of its judicial scrutiny by the superior Courts. Merely a dereliction or misinterpretation or even a wrong judgement for that purpose given by the judicial officer in exercise of his judicial powers cannot be made as a subject matter for punishing an officer for committing a procedural or judicial flaw in rendering an order, which is under challenge in the present revision, and that too by invoking revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 CrPC. Apart from it, the said relief under no proposition of law, cannot be made as a subject matter of revision because it is not a subject matter which was agitated by the revisionist on an administrative side before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Thus the relief prayed for, seeking an action against the judicial officer, is absolutely misconceived, untenable and beyond the scope of revisional jurisdiction.

As far as adjudication made to the application paper No.392 (ka), as would be apparent from the findings recorded in the impugned order its that there is no procedural deprivation as such with the revisionist whereby he has been curtailed or deprived of opportunity with to lead his defence and as such the rejection of application paper number 392 (ka) is absolutely within the canons of Justice and hence this Court does not find any anomaly rendered by the Court below while rejecting the application paper No. 392 (ka) and 393 (ka), consequently, the revision lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.