Taking adverse view of a sessions court judge, who had not pronounced judgment even after the trial of a MCOCA accused had been completed over five months ago, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday set aside an order that had directed that the final arguments be heard again by a new judge after the sessions court judge, who had conducted the trial, is transferred.
The HC, in an order on January 6, further directed the sessions court judge that the order be pronounced within two to three weeks.
The accused in the case, gangster Parvesh Mann alias Sagar Mann, was tried under sections 3 and 4 (conspiring, committing or facilitating organised crime) of MCOCA by a Delhi sessions court, stemming from a 2019 FIR lodged by the Delhi Police Special Cell.
The sessions court had reserved its judgment in July 2025. Subsequently, while the judgment was not pronounced, the judge was transferred, and a new judge took over.
Following the transfer, a direction was passed by the sessions court that final arguments in the MCOCA case will be heard afresh by the new judge. Mann had then moved HC seeking that this order be set aside and that his case be transferred to the judge who had conducted the trial, only for the limited purpose of pronouncing the verdict.
Acceding to Mann’s plea, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recorded in the order, “Judicial proceedings cannot oscillate between readiness and uncertainty in this manner, particularly after the trial has concluded and the case has stood reserved for judgment for a considerable period of time i.e. for about five months… To now compel the accused to undergo another round of final arguments before a new judge would amount to prolonging uncertainty and, in effect, would result in serious prejudice.”
The sessions court had concluded the trial on July 4, 2025, and fixed July 30, 2025 as the date to pronounce the verdict. The order, however, could not be pronounced on the date and on subsequent four dates. On the fifth date – November 7, 2025 – the sessions court had deferred the pronouncement, with a direction that the accused be produced physically and not virtually, as they were appearing that day. The court then fixed November 28, 2025 for pronouncement of the verdict. However, the judge was transferred on November 18, 2025 and the successor then issued directions that the final arguments be heard again.
Story continues below this ad
Justice Sharma relied on the transfer order issued by Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya, which directed that judicial officers who are transferred must still deliver judgments or orders in cases where verdicts had been reserved, either on the scheduled date or, at the latest, within 2–3 weeks thereafter, regardless of their transfer or posting.
The HC, in a July 2025 judgment, had held that a judicial officer, upon transfer, shall pronounce judgments/orders on the dates already fixed or in any event, within 2-3 weeks from the date of transfer.
Justice Sharma noted, “Predecessor judge neither complied with the instructions issued alongside the transfer orders by the Hon’ble Chief Justice nor adhered to the directions laid down by this court.”
“Once final arguments had been fully heard, the learned predecessor judge was bound to pronounce the judgment. Directing a rehearing of arguments in such circumstances not only defeats the mandate of the transfer orders and the law laid down by this court, but also results in avoidable delay in adjudication and places an unnecessary burden upon the learned successor judge, who is compelled to rehear a matter that has already been fully argued,” he added.
Story continues below this ad
The HC also took into account that the BNSS provisions mandate judgments be pronounced within 30-45 days of conclusion of the trial, which too was not adhered to.
The prosecution, on the other hand, had argued that the judgment was delayed as clarifications were required from the investigating officer, and thus the trial court’s order to rehear final arguments before a new judge does not suffer from any infirmity.
