Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Subhash Sadashiv Risbud, appearing in person, filed a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court challenging an order passed by the learned District Judge-13, Pune, in Miscellaneous Application No.1084 of 2007. The District Judge had condoned a delay of 10 days in filing an appeal against a judgment and decree dated 26.9.2007, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner, who was a respondent in that application, alleged that the order amounted to criminal misconduct on the part of the District Judge and sought investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner argued that the learned Judge erred in condoning the delay, as the decree should have been drawn on the same day as the judgment, and that the Judge's liberal approach defeated the purpose of the Limitation Act. He also contended that the Judge's acceptance of the applicants' statements regarding their age and infirmity was unjustified. The High Court, after evaluating the material and submissions, including the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in related matters, held that there was no over-reaching by the Judicial Officer in condoning the delay. The court observed that if the Judge had erred, the aggrieved party had appropriate remedies of redressal, and it could not be said that the Judge abused his position. The court further held that directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against a judge for a judicial order would be bizarre, and that the judicial order cannot be treated as criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which deals with obtaining valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without public interest. The court dismissed the revision application, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Condonation of Delay - Judicial Order Not Criminal Misconduct - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d)(iii) - The court held that a judicial order condoning delay in filing an appeal, even if erroneous, cannot be treated as criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as the section deals with obtaining valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without public interest. The remedy for an aggrieved party lies in challenging the order through appropriate legal remedies, not by seeking investigation against the judge. (Paras 5-6) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Investigation Against Judge - Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - The court held that directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against a judge for a judicial order would be a bizarre action and cannot be sustained. The judicial order is subject to questioning through appellate or revisional jurisdiction, not by treating it as abuse of power or criminal misconduct. (Para 6) C) Judges Protection - Judicial Acts - Section 3 of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 - The court noted that judges are protected under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act for acts done in judicial capacity, and a judicial order condoning delay cannot be said to be criminal misconduct warranting action. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a judicial order condoning delay in filing an appeal can be treated as criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be directed against a judge for such an order
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, holding that there was no over-reaching by the Judicial Officer in condoning the delay, and that the judicial order cannot be treated as criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court observed that the remedy for an aggrieved party lies in challenging the order through appropriate legal remedies, not by seeking investigation against the judge.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay is discretionary
- judicial order cannot be treated as criminal misconduct
- Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act not applicable to judicial orders
- Section 3 of Judges (Protection) Act protects judges for acts done in judicial capacity
