A bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice P S Teji called for all the case files of the decision rendered by Additional Sessions Judge Sunil Chaudhary while hearing an appeal in one of the acquittals.
The Delhi High court has ordered the re-investigation of all the cases of acquittal by a POCSO judge deputed at the Saket court complex in the national capital after it found some “fundamental and serious error in the approach of the learned Judge in deciding the cases.
A bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice P S Teji called for all the case files of the decision rendered by Additional Sessions Judge Sunil Chaudhary while hearing an appeal in one of the acquittals.
“We have come across several decisions rendered by the same learned Judge in cases under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and they all, prima-facie, appear to be laconic.
“There is a fundamental and serious error in the approach of the learned Judge in deciding the cases which have come to our notice,” the court.
The bench held that the situation demanded them “to examine all the decisions rendered by the Additional & Sessions Judge Sunil Chaudhary while discharging functions as the ASJ-01, South-East District, New Delhi, in cases under POCSO Act”.
The court directed the District and Sessions Judge, South East District, New Delhi to place before the court all the decisions delivered by ASJ Chaudhary on the next date of hearing for examination by invoking its powers under section 397 and 401 CrPC.
Section 397 CrPC empowers a high court or a sessions judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court within its jurisdiction.
The court’s direction comes while hearing an appeal by Delhi police challenging the acquittal of a youth who had allegedly kidnapped and sexually assaulted a 10-year-old in the year 2010.
Additional Standing Counsel for the state, Rajat Kaytal said that "the judgement borders on perversity” following which the court found substance in the claim and held, “Prima-facie a reading of the impugned judgment gives us the same impression.”
The court also took note of the three different appeals which had come from the judgments pronounced by the same judge and henceforth recalled all the records from the District and Sessions Judge.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Delhi High Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}