Ponmudy விடுதலை case Judge Anamth venkadesh கருத்துக்களை நீக்குங்கள் எனது தீர்பில் தவறில்லை . YOURS SINCERELY, N. VASANTHALEELA DISTRICT JUDGE (RTD.)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6

 
From To
N. Vasanthaleela The Registrar General, High
Court of Madras, Chennai
District Judge (Retired) High Court of Madras,
7/85, Edyarpalayam main road, Chennai.
Kavundampalayam,
Coimbatore – 641030.

Honoured Sir,
Sub: Response as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special leave petition (Criminal) Diary No 43344/2023, to the para 12 of the impugned order dated 10/08/2023 in Suo moto Crl.R.C.No.1419 of 2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras – submitted Regarding.

Ref: 1 Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special leave petition (Criminal) Diary No 43344/2023.
2 Suo-moto order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Suo moto Crl.R.C.No.1419 of 2023.
3 Transfer Order of case by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in R.O.C.49596-A/22/B2 dt.12.07.2022
4 E-court diary proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.3/2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Vellore for the period from 19.10.2022 to 28.06.2023
5 Judgement dated 28.06.2023 in Spl.S.C.No.3/2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Vellore.

MAY IT PLEASE MY LORD OF HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
1. I respectfully submit that in the reference 1st cited above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted leave to me to file Special Leave Petition on order arising out of impugned order dated 10/08/2023 in Suo moto Crl.R.C.No.1419 of 2023 passed by The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras.

2. I further submit that in pursuance of the same, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted me to submit a Response for the observations contained in para 12 of the impugned order of the Hon’ble Single Judge of Hon’ble High court of Madras, to the Registrar General of Hon’ble High Court of Madras. It is further stated in para 6 of Hon’ble Supreme Court order in Special leave petition (Criminal) Diary No 43344/2023, “the Registrar General shall place the explanation which is tendered by the petitioner before the Single Judge who is hearing the Suo moto Crl.R.C.No.1419 of 2023”.

3. Para 12 of impugned order passed in Suo moto Crl.R.C.No.1419 of 2023 is hereby re-produced for easier appreciation.

“By 06.06.2023, a case which had thus far been lingering on for years started to move with great alacrity. Perhaps, the accused drew inspiration from Paulo Coelho who said that “when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it”. By the first week of June 2023, the celestial stars of the accused appeared to be lining up perfectly, with the blessings of judicial personages, including the Principal District Judge, Vellore who was set to demit office on 30.06.2023. DW-1 was quickly examined on the side of the defense on 06.06.2023. On 23.06.2023, written submissions were made on the side of the accused, and on 28.06.2023, ie., within 4 days, the Principal District, Vellore marshalled the evidence of 172 prosecution witnesses and 381 documents and managed (or rather stage-managed) to deliver a 226-page testament/judgment acquitting all the accused. This unique feat of industry on the part of the Principal District Judge, Vellore can find few parallels, and it may well be said is a feat that even judicial mortals in constitutional Courts can only dream of. Two days thereafter, on 30.06.2023, the Principal District Judge, Vellore retired and cheerfully rode off into the sunset.”

4. As referred above, I am herewith submitting my Response. At the first instance, I deny each and every comment and observation made against me by the Hon’ble Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court of Madras made in the entire order of the impugned order passed in Suo moto Crl.R.C.No.1419 of 2023 and more particularly deny the comments and observations made against me in the para 12 of the impugned order of the Hon’ble Single Judge.

5. To begin with, in para 12, it is observed as follows, “By 06.06.2023, a case which had thus far been lingering on for years started to move with great alacrity”, observed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. The above observation is completely unsustainable for the reason that the previous hearing was heard on 25.04.2023 with the following docket entry of the case,

“A3- A5 died. Police and Spl. PP present. Counsel for A1 and A2 present. Personal appearance of A1 and A2 dispensed with. P.W Nos. 68, 92 and 124 present and further cross examined in full. Issue summons to DWs by 06/06/2023”.

25/04/2023 is in the month of April 2023. The Court had vacation for the entire month of May 2023. Therefore, after the vacation holidays shortly within the first week of June 2023, that too in the Special day of the Court for sessions cases and also the Special Prosecutor attending days i.e., on Monday and Tuesday and accordingly it was heard on 06/06/2023.

6. The list of hearing days is given below to show how meticulously the case was posted and heard as per the directions of Hon’ble High Court in the Ref. No.3 referred above directing The Principal District Court, Vellore to dispose the case “EXPEDITIOUSLY” while transferring the case from the file of Principal District Judge, Villupuram to the file of Principal District Judge, Vellore. The case of S.C.No.2/2019 on the file of Principal District Judge, Villupuram transferred to the file of Principal District Judge, Vellore as per the Hon’ble High Court of Madras order dated 12.07.2022 received by this Court on 15.07.2022 and taken on file as SPL SC.No.3/2022 on 19.10.2022 and meticulously following the directions of Hon’ble High Court of Madras posted and heard the case on following dates.

07/11/2022, 14/11/2022, 21/11/2022, 28/11/2022, 29/11/2022, 05/12/2022, 20/12/2022, 03/01/2023, 09/01/2023, 23/01/2023, 30/01/2023, 06/02/2023, 13/02/2023, 20/02/2023, 21/02/2023, 24/02/2023, 28/02/2023, 01/03/2023, 06/03/2023, 07/03/2023, 08/03/2023, 09/03/2023, 13/03/2023, 14/03/2023, 20/03/2023, 21/03/2023, 27/03/2023, 28/03/2023, 30/03/2023, 06/04/2023, 10/04/2023, 11/04/2023, 13/04/2023, 25/04/2023, 06/06/2023, 13/06/2023, 19/06/2023, 23/06/2023, 27/06/2023, 28/06/2023.

A careful perusal of the above dates of hearing would clearly show that even without giving more than a week, the case was posted in regular intervals, so as to dispose it expeditiously in compliance of Hon’ble High Court’s direction and in view of directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ashwin Kumar Upadhayay vs UOI WP (Civil) 699/2016”.

7. For instance, even in the month of April 2023 the case was posted for five hearings. Hence the above observation made in para 12 of the impugned order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Suo moto Crl.R.C.No.1419 of 2023 is found to be unsustainable and the observation is found to be made without dipping into the records and docket entries. I wish to reiterate that as per the docket entry of the hearing dates, the case is regularly and periodically posted and heard from the beginning of the date of taken on file to the end proved, that the case was not lingering without any hearing for years and started to move with great alacrity on 06/06/2023.

8. I further state that in the para 12 of impugned order, the Hon’ble Single Judge further observed that “the accused drew inspiration from Paulo Coelho who said that when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it”. The quotation of Paulo Coelho, the Brazilian lyricist and novelist got no relevancy for judicial pronouncements and also there is no part of the above quotation had acted upon in the findings of my judicial order of this case.

9. Here, it is pertinent to state that when I was transferred from the post of Principal District Judge, Kanchipuram @ Chengalpet to the post of Principal District Judge, Vellore during the annual transfer in April 2021, I was requesting transfer to Chennai since my son was studying at Chennai to facilitate his studies and I also intended to settle at Chennai But my request was not considered. During the annual transfer in April, 2023, I sent my transfer requesition to Hon’ble High Court of Madras to transfer me to Chennai, so as to facilitate me to settle down at Chennai as I was in the verge of my retirement. However, this time also my request was not considered by Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Hence the Paulo Coelho quotation has to be ignored from consideration as it has no relevance to my case.

10. Further I submit that in para 12 itself of the impugned order, it is also stated that “By the first week of June 2023, the celestial stars of the accused appeared to be lining up perfectly, with the blessings of judicial personages, including the Principal District Judge, Vellore who was set to demit office on 30.06.2023”.

I submit that the above remarks are a set of unwarranted derogatory and disparaging remarks made against me by the Hon’ble Single Judge. I submit that as a judicial officer having an experience of more than 27 years including 10 years as District Judge, no implication of “the celestial stars of the accused appeared to be lining up perfectly” are considered in any of my judgement. I also bonafidely believe that the judicial system from Apex Court to lowest rank of magistrate Court ever considered “perfectly lining up of celestial stars of accused”.

11. Further it is added, “with the blessings of judicial personages”. I am not able to understand or able to ventilate on whom it is pointed out. Further adding to it in the 5th and 6th line it is stated “including the Principal District Judge, Vellore who was set to demit office on 30.06.2023”. I sternly oppose the above comment of the Hon’ble Single Judge as unwarranted and as extravagant criticism and usage of intemperate language against me.

12. For that I further humbly submit when the trial was ordered to be transferred to the file of Principal District Judge, Vellore on 12/07/2022 with a direction to dispose the case expeditiously, it was a matter of fact apparent on record that I had only 11 months of service i.e., less than a year. For which as a Principal District Judge, Vellore who is about to retire on 30/06/2023, I have got no Locus Standi to ventilate any opinion for transferring the case to Vellore Court from Villupuram Court.

13. Further the observation is unjustified for the following reasons:

a. When the case was transferred from the file of Principal District Judge, Villupuram to the file of Principal District Judge, Vellore, already it was a 20 years old case and this court was directed to dispose this case “EXPETIDIOUSLY”. Accordingly in compliance of the Hon’ble High Court’s direction and also in view of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ashwin kumar Upadhayay vs UOI IN WP(CIVIL)699/2016” the case was disposed of meritoriously without any favour or fear, by posting and hearing the case periodically from the date of taken on file till the date of disposal, on the basis of materials available on record and as the charge could not be held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, appropriate order has been passed in my Judgment. However in the event of this Hon’ble Court coming to a conclusion that the order is erroneous, the same may be reversed on the basis of materials available. I cannot have any “say” in that aspect nor I justify my acquittal order. Hence I reiterate that the case was viewed as Direction case only and accordingly disposed off with the available material on record and nothing else as observed.

b. The case was handled by The Principal District Court, Vellore only for a period of 11 months. Already 90% of the trial was completed before the Principal District Judge, Villupuram and 10% of the trial only conducted by this Court by way of examining 2 prosecution side witness and 1 defence side witness.

c. At the time of conducting the trial, I was also conducting trial in O.S.No.287 /2004. In that case Hon’ble Supreme Court had issued a direction to dispose the case in 6 months. Since, the defendant side filed IAs one after other, I was not able to dispose the case in spite of my earnest efforts. For which, I requested extension of time, which was also granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the plaintiff ( party in person and a practicing Advocate) preferred a Contempt Complaint against me for not complying the direction by disposing the case, alleging it as Judicial indiscipline. In the said Complaint, I was called for explanation by way of Report by the Hon’ble High Court. I also gave my explanation which was accepted by Hon’ble High Court. These are the 2 cases conducted by me during my last period of retirement as both the cases are Direction cases.

14. Further I respectfully submit that in para 12 of impugned order it is also stated as follows “DW-1 was quickly examined on the side of the defense on 06.06.2023”. In this regard I submit that these observations are made without carefully perusing the case records particularly the docket entries. DW1 was not at all either quickly or belatedly examined, the docket entry of the case will establish the same. That previous to the hearing 06/06/2023, it was on 25/04/2023 the case stood posted to and heard. The docket entry on 25/04/2023 is written as follows:

“A3 – A5 died. Police and Spl PP present. Counsel for A1 and A2 present. Personal appearance of A1 and A2 dispensed with. P.W Nos 68, 92 and 124 present and further cross examined in full. Issue summons to DWs by 06/06/2023.”

15. In this matter questioning of accused under 313 of Cr.P.C was already completed on 10/04/2023 itself. It is pertinent to state here that I had sufficient time to go through the depositions of all witnesses thoroughly during 313 Cr.P.C questioning stage itself. Since prosecution side completed their evidence by examining 172 witnesses by 21/03/2023, it is to be noted after the completion of 313 Cr.P.C. process on 10/04/2023, the case stood posted to 11/04/2023 with the following docket:

Police and Spl. PP present. A3 – A5 died. Personal appearance of A1 and A2 dispensed with. Counsel for A1 and A2 present. Cr.m.p.no1458/23 is pending call on 13/04/2023.

“On 13/04/2023: Police and Spl PP present. A3 – A5 died. Personal appearance of A1 and A2 dispensed with. Counsel for A1 and A2 present. Cr.m.p.no1458/2023 is allowed. Issue summons to PW Nos 68,92,124 on payment of process fee. Call on 25/04/2023”.

On 25/04/2023 PW Nos. 68, 92, 124 were present and further cross examined by the accused side in full and then the matter was posted for examination of DWs on 06/06/2023 for whom summons were ordered to be issued.

16. In this regard it is to be pointed out here that matter was heard on 25/04/2023 and then posted for DWs on 06/06/2023 since May month is a vacation period for the Court. Accordingly, on 06/06/2023 it was posted for defence side witness examination on issuance of summons on 25/04/2023. Since DW1 was present on 06/06/2023, he was examined on that day itself, having no option for the Court either to take it quickly or to delay it further. This fact of the trial Court procedure, according to me is not understood in its proper perspective and wrongly observed as “quickly examined”, which is not correct.
However this Court cannot have any control over on how the Accused should appear nor I can have any control over that after this day I will never pass an order.
17. Further I respectfully submit in the impugned order in para 12 it is also observed that “On 23.06.2023, written submissions were made on the side of the accused, and on 28.06.2023, i.e., within 4 days, the Principal District, Vellore marshalled the evidence of 172 prosecution witnesses and 381 documents and managed (or rather stage-managed) to deliver a 226-page testament/judgment acquitting all the accused.”
It is to be pointed out here that out of 226 pages of judgement the discussion and decretal portion roughly works out 75 pages only, leaving nearly 150 pages forming the pleadings, list of witnesses and documents.

18. The observations referred above further strengthen my opinion that without carefully perusing or dipping into the records, it has been observed wrongly in the impugned order, for the reasons that here, I wish to reiterate the docket entry on 19/06/20023 as follows:

Police and Spl. PP present. A3 – A5 died. Personal appearance of A1 and A2 dispensed with. Counsel for A1 and A2 present. Arguments on the side of prosecution heard, arguments on the side of A1 and A2 heard in part. Further arguments at request call on 23/06/2023.
From the above docket entry, it is apparently clear that prosecution side arguments were over on 19/06/2023 itself. Further argument on the side of the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 also heard partly i.e., almost fully. Here it is to be pointed out that the Hon’ble Single Judge completely ignored the date of posting on 19/06/2023 and also the hearing of arguments by both sides on that day. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 23/06/2023, on which date, written arguments were submitted by the accused.

19. Again, the matter was posted on 27/06/2023 from 23/06/23, for further arguments on the side of accused, Hence, it is not correct to observe that judgement was pronounced within 4 days. In actual, the judgement was pronounced only after 9 days from the date of arguments i.e., on 10th day only.

20. As a trial Court judge on completion of prosecution side arguments and after hearing of the accused side arguments, as per the ethical norms and as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court, the criminal Courts have to pronounce the judgement within 3 days after hearing the arguments. As it is very clear, having 172 prosecution witnesses and with one DWs and having 563 documents, this matter cannot be dictated within 3 days, which would be known to all legal personalities.

21. Accordingly, upon hearing both side arguments on 19/06/2023 I started dictating the judgement. Further received the written arguments on 23/06/2023 and further more I gained time of 10 days for preparing the judgement and for carrying out corrections in the judgement. Finally, on 27/06/2023, I completed the judgement and on 28/06/2023, from the morning I carefully perused the typed dictation, carried out corrections and directed my stenographer to carry out those corrections in the computer. Then after completion of the judgement by the Stenographer as dictated and the fair copy was produced by 5.00 pm on 28/06/2023. On careful perusal of the fair copy judgement, I have duly signed and pronounced the judgement around 5.30 pm.

22. The practical difficulties of the trial Court for following the ethical norms of criminal Court procedures and the entire matter are narrated above and there was ample time of more than 10 days available for me from 19/06/2023 to 28/06/2023 for preparation, dictation, carrying out the corrections and pronouncement of judgement. Since 29/06/2023 happened to be a public holiday the case was posted for judgement on 28/06/2023.

23. I further submit in para 12 of impugned order of Hon’ble High Court of Madras it is also stated as follows: “This unique feat of industry on the part of the Principal District Judge, Vellore can find few parallels, and it may well be said is a feat that even judicial mortals in constitutional Courts can only dream of. Two days thereafter, on 30.06.2023, the Principal District Judge, Vellore retired and cheerfully rode off into the sunset”

24. Under these circumstances, I wish to state that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, through the judgments annexed herewith and other catena of judgments, time and again, observed that Higher Court should normally avoid use of disparaging remarks against lower Judicial Officers while finding his/her judgment under appeal or revision before it to be erroneous or lacking in any manner, particularly if the officer had no opportunity to give his/her explanation.

25. Further, I wish to state that even if the judgement is erroneous or lacking in any manner, the Legal System acknowledges fallibility of judges, hence it provides for appeals and revisions.

26. I further wish to state that without giving me an opportunity to explain the fact that the argument was heard for more than 3 days, on 3 different occasions spanning over 9 days and for preparation of judgement it took 10 days, further I submit that in the intervening May month summer vacation, I had ample time to study the entire case records repeatedly, thereby, enabling me to hear the argument and pronounce the judgement effectively, furthermore I already had an opportunity to go through the depositions of all witnesses during 313 questioning stage on 10/04/2023,the observation is made thereby ignoring my unblemished service of almost 28 years in judiciary having not even a single memo or adverse remarks in my ACR of my entire career and even without any iota of oral observation against me. To my personal feeling in publication of para 12 of the impugned order in all modern media including newspapers, it is nothing but robbing of my reputation and also my earnest service in the judiciary, by single stroke of pen vide order dated 10/08/2023 in Suo moto Crl.R.C.No.1419 of 2023 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, that too within less than 45 days of my retirement.

27. I emphatically submit that the disparaging remarks made by the Hon’ble Single Judge is wholly unwarranted and unjustifiable and its retention on records will cause serious harm to me and my future prospects of my career will come to a standstill. Further, the Hon’ble Single Judge has not given any logical reasoning as to what was fault committed by me and no finding as to why the Hon’ble Lordship has disagreed with the reasoning given by me also not recorded.

28. I did not have an opportunity to explain the Hon’ble High Court about the above facts and circumstances of the trial Court procedures in pronouncing the judgement before passing the observations in para12 of the impugned order, as done now and I wholeheartedly thank Hon’ble Supreme Court for giving me this opportunity.

29. In the above circumstances I humbly pray the Hon’ble High Court of Madras to expunge the para 12 in the impugned order passed in Suo moto Criminal R.C No.1419/2023 by Hon’ble High Court of Madras and save my sincere service I have rendered to judiciary.\

30. I crave leave of this Hon’ble High Court to permit me to file additional response if any, at a later stage.

YOURS SINCERELY,

N. VASANTHALEELA
DISTRICT JUDGE (RTD.)

ENCL:
1. Copy of Hon’ble Supreme Court order in Special Leave Petition (criminal) diary no 43344/2023.

2. Copy of Suo moto order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Suo moto criminal R.C No 1419/2023.

3. Copy of judgement dated 28/06/2023 passed in Spl Sessions case No 3/2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Vellore.

4. E- Court Diary proceedings in Spl. Sessions case No 3/2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Vellore for the period from 19/10/2022 – 28/06/2023.

5. Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh Teji Vs. Northern India Goods Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. And another in Civil Appeals Nos. 2586-87 of 2009, Reported in (2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 577.

6. Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amar Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another in Criminal Appeal No. 651 of 2009, Reported in (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 591.

7. Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Awani Kumar Upadhyay Vs. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad and others in Civil Appeals Nos. 1340-41 of 2013, Reported in (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 392.