New Delhi, February 23 The Supreme Court on Monday struck down the critical observations made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court against a judge of a special court, stating that the "rash conclusion" accusing the judge of "intellectual dishonesty" was "completely unwarranted".
The special court, dealing with cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, had convicted an accused in a case of sexual assault.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court had overturned the decision and made critical observations against the special judge, stating that he had "displayed a sign of intellectual dishonesty".
The high court had said that the special judge and the public prosecutor had committed a "major lapse" by unjustly convicting the accused and keeping him in jail for over three years, while overlooking the fact that the victim was a consenting adult.
On Monday, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard an appeal by the special judge of the trial court against the December 17, 2022 order of the high court, which had made adverse remarks against him.
A separate appeal was also filed by the public prosecutor, as a show cause notice seeking an explanation was issued against him as well as the special judge.
"We are satisfied that the observations of the high court are completely unwarranted, out of context, and contrary to section 94 (method of determining age) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015...The judgment against the appellants (judge and prosecutor) is hereby set aside," the CJI said in the order.
The bench stated that the "rash conclusion" accusing the judge of "intellectual dishonesty" was "completely unwarranted".
While acquitting the accused, the high court had said, "We propose to issue a show cause notice to the concerned special judge as well as the public prosecutor for such a major lapse in unjustly convicting the accused and keeping him in jail for over three years, while overlooking the fact that the victim was a consenting adult, therefore, a conviction could not have been made."
"This is a sign of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the special judge. The registry is requested to issue a show cause notice to the concerned special judge and the public prosecutor, calling for their explanation," the high court had also said.