The Delhi High Court has held that once final arguments are concluded and judgment is reserved, the presiding judge is duty-bound to pronounce the judgment even if transferred, and directing a rehearing of final arguments in such circumstances is legally unsustainable. Allowing a petition filed by Parvesh Mann alias Sagar Mann, the court set aside the successor judge’s order for rehearing and directed that the reserved judgment be pronounced by the predecessor judge within two to three weeks.
Background of the Case
The petition was heard by the Delhi High Court, and decided by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Parvesh Mann is the main accused in Sessions Case No. 143/2020 arising from FIR No. 207/2019 registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. The FIR was registered in 2019 and the charge sheet was filed on July 17, 2020.
The trial concluded with prosecution evidence ending on October 15, 2024. Final arguments for all accused and the State, including rebuttal, concluded on July 4, 2025, after which the trial court reserved the matter for judgment and fixed July 30, 2025, for pronouncement. The case was repeatedly listed for pronouncement on several dates thereafter.
On November 7, 2025, the predecessor judge was ready to pronounce judgment but deferred it because the accused were produced through video conferencing and directed that they be produced physically on November 28, 2025. Before that date, the predecessor judge was transferred pursuant to administrative orders dated November 18 and November 26, 2025.
Subsequently, the successor judge directed rehearing of final arguments, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking transfer of the case back to the predecessor judge for the limited purpose of pronouncement of judgment.
Submissions Before the Court
The petitioner argued that the case had been fully heard and reserved prior to the transfer and that the administrative transfer orders expressly mandated transferred judicial officers to pronounce reserved judgments within two to three weeks. It was contended that directing a rehearing at this stage would cause undue delay and serious prejudice, particularly as the petitioner had been in custody for over five years.
The State submitted that the predecessor judge had transferred the case because certain clarifications were required from the Investigating Officer and, after transfer, the judge could not conduct such proceedings, justifying the matter being placed before the successor judge.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court framed the core issue as whether the predecessor judge was required to pronounce the judgment notwithstanding the transfer, or whether the successor judge’s direction for rehearing could be sustained.
After examining the chronology, the court noted that the judgment had been reserved on July 4, 2025 and repeatedly listed only for pronouncement. The record showed that on November 7, 2025, the predecessor judge was prepared to pronounce judgment and deferred it solely due to the absence of the accused in physical form.
The court placed significant reliance on the binding administrative directions appended to the transfer orders, which stated:
“The judicial officers under transfer shall notify the cases in which they had reserved judgments/orders before relinquishing the charge of the court… and shall pronounce judgments/orders in all such matters on the date fixed or maximum within a period of 2–3 weeks thereof, notwithstanding the posting/transfer.”
The High Court further relied on its earlier decision in B.D. Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi, which had laid down a mandatory protocol requiring transferred presiding officers to pronounce reserved judgments within the stipulated period.
On timelines for pronouncement, the court referred to Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, where it was held:
“Such subsequent time can at the most be stretched to a period of six weeks and not beyond that time in any case.”
The court also noted that Section 258 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 prescribes a time-limit of 30 to 45 days for pronouncing judgment after conclusion of trial.
Addressing the claim that clarifications from the Investigating Officer were required, the High Court observed that no such need was recorded when the case was repeatedly listed for pronouncement over nearly five months. The later assertion that clarifications were necessary was found difficult to reconcile with the earlier readiness to pronounce judgment.
The court emphasized the prejudice caused to an accused in prolonged custody, stating that reopening arguments after conclusion of trial “would amount to prolonging uncertainty” and undermine the right to a speedy trial.
Decision
Concluding that the course adopted by the trial court was contrary to settled legal principles and binding administrative directions, the High Court held that the predecessor judge was duty-bound to pronounce the judgment.
Accordingly, the court directed that Sessions Case No. 143/2020 be transferred from the court of ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, back to the predecessor judge, presently posted as Judge, Family Court-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, solely for pronouncement of judgment. The judgment is to be delivered within two to three weeks from receipt of the High Court’s order.
The order directing rehearing of final arguments was set aside, and the dates fixed for rehearing were cancelled. The petition was disposed of.
