Court Upheld Jurisdiction Post-Transfer, Emphasized Victim Compensation

KARAN AND SUNNY Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI.

KARAN AND SUNNY Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge post-transfer.
2. Validity of Note 2 appended to the transfer order dated 13th March 2020.
3. Applicability of the de facto doctrine.
4. Compensation to victims under Sections 357 and 357A CrPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge post-transfer:
The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) who pronounced the judgment after being transferred from Karkardooma Courts to Rohini Courts. The Court held that the ASJ was empowered to pronounce the judgment by virtue of Note 2 appended to the transfer order dated 13th March 2020. The pronouncement of the judgment by the ASJ was in terms of Section 353 CrPC. The delay in pronouncing the judgment was deemed a mere irregularity and was condoned as it did not cause any prejudice to the accused.

2. Validity of Note 2 appended to the transfer order dated 13th March 2020:
The Court declared Note 2 appended to the transfer order dated 13th March 2020 as legal and valid. Note 2 was issued by the High Court in exercise of its general power of superintendence over all subordinate courts under Articles 227 and 235 of the Constitution. The Court overruled the contrary finding of the Division Bench in Jitender’s case, which had commented on the validity of Note 2 without considering Articles 227 and 235 of the Constitution and Section 462 CrPC. The Division Bench had not issued notice to the High Court on the administrative side before considering the validity of Note 2.

3. Applicability of the de facto doctrine:
The Court held that the impugned judgment is protected by the de facto doctrine based on necessity and public policy. The de facto doctrine ensures that acts performed by a person under the color of lawful authority are considered valid even if the appointment is later found to be defective. This doctrine was applied to protect the judgments/orders of judges whose appointments were subsequently quashed.

4. Compensation to victims under Sections 357 and 357A CrPC:
The Court emphasized the importance of compensating victims of crime. Section 357 CrPC empowers the Court to award compensation to victims who have suffered loss or injury by reason of the act of the accused. The Court directed that a summary inquiry be conducted by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to ascertain the impact of the crime on the victim, the expenses incurred on prosecution, and the paying capacity of the accused. The Court formulated the format of an affidavit to be filed by the accused to disclose his assets and income. The Court also formulated the format of the Victim Impact Report to be filed by DSLSA. The Court directed that in cases where the accused does not have the capacity to pay the compensation, the Court shall invoke Section 357A CrPC to recommend the case to DSLSA for award of compensation from the Victim Compensation Fund under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018.

Conclusion:
The High Court has both judicial and administrative power to regulate the administration of justice. Note 2 appended to the transfer order dated 13th March 2020 is declared legal and valid. The impugned judgment is protected by Sections 462 and 465 CrPC and the de facto doctrine. The Court emphasized the importance of compensating victims and directed a summary inquiry by DSLSA to ascertain the impact of the crime on the victim and the paying capacity of the accused. The Court formulated the format of the affidavit to be filed by the accused and the Victim Impact Report to be filed by DSLSA.