CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 1 of 18

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 19.12.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 05.01.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 06.01.2026

+ CRL.M.C. 9064/2025 & CRL.M.A. 37956/2025

PARVESH MANN @ SAGAR MANN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Avi Kalra, Mr. Prateek

Lakra and Ms. Arya Pathak,

Advocates.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELLHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State

along with Insp. Ravi Tushir,

Special Cell NR.

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

Index to the Judgment

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 2

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT .............................................. 3

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ...................................................................... 5

The Issue ............................................................................................................. 5

Chronology of Proceedings After Conclusion of Final Arguments &

Judgment being Reserved .................................................................................. 5

Effect of Transfer Orders and Binding Directions of This Court ............ 10

Timelines for Pronouncement of Judgment ................................................. 12

Assessment of the Impugned Course of Action and Resultant Prejudice

Caused to the Accused ..................................................................................... 13

Conclusion & Decision .................................................................................... 17

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 2 of 18

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking transfer of

Sessions Case No. 143/2020, arising out of FIR No. 207/2019,

registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, for offences

punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of

Organised Crime Act, 1999 [hereafter „MCOCA‟], from the Court of

the learned ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, to the learned

Predecessor Judge, who is presently posted as learned Judge, Family

Court-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, for the

limited purpose of pronouncement of judgment. The said prayer is

founded upon Order No. 45/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 18.11.2025

and Order No. 48/D-2/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 26.11.2025, issued

by the learned Registrar General of this Court.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the main

accused in the aforesaid FIR pertaining to an organised crime

syndicate allegedly being run by him along with his associates. The

FIR was registered in the year 2019 and the chargesheet was filed on

17.07.2020. The trial thereafter commenced and prosecution evidence

concluded on 15.10.2024. Final arguments on behalf of the petitioner

concluded on 06.03.2025, and those on behalf of the remaining

accused persons concluded on 05.04.2025. Final arguments on behalf

of all the accused persons as well as the State, including rebuttal,

were concluded on 04.07.2025, whereupon the matter was reserved

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 3 of 18

for judgment and fixed for pronouncement on 30.07.2025.

3. The judgment, however, could not be pronounced on the

scheduled date and on subsequent dates. On 07.11.2025, the learned

Predecessor Judge was ready to pronounce the judgment but deferred

the same as the accused persons were appearing through video

conferencing and were directed to be produced physically on

28.11.2025. In the interregnum, the learned Predecessor Judge was

transferred vide order dated 18.11.2025. Consequently, the matter

came up before the learned Successor Judge on 28.11.2025, and

thereafter stood transferred back and forth between the learned

Predecessor Judge and the learned Successor Judge, ultimately

resulting in directions by the learned Successor Judge for rehearing of

final arguments from 06.01.2026 to 09.01.2026.

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the

final arguments had already been fully addressed before the learned

Predecessor Judge and that the matter has remained reserved since

04.07.2025. It is contended that the case had been reserved for

judgment prior to the issuance of the transfer order dated 18.11.2025.

It is further argued that the subsequent order dated 26.11.2025, issued

in continuation of the earlier transfer order, specifically mandated

that judicial officers who were transferred were required to prepare a

list of matters in which judgments or orders had been reserved and to

pronounce the same either on the date already fixed or, in any event,

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 4 of 18

within a period of two to three weeks from the date of transfer.

According to the petitioner, the learned Predecessor Judge did not

adhere to the said mandate and instead transferred the present case to

the learned Successor Judge, who has now directed rehearing of the

final arguments. It is submitted that directing a rehearing at this

advanced stage would result in undue delay in the adjudication of the

case and would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner. In support of

the said submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgments in

B.D. Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2025:DHC:5607;

Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar:

(1980) 1 SCC 108; and Anil Rai v. State of Bihar: (2001) 7 SCC

318.

5. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, submits that

the learned Predecessor Judge had heard the arguments in the present

case and had reserved the matter for pronouncement of judgment.

However, it is contended that the learned Predecessor Judge has

transferred the case to the learned Successor Judge as certain

clarifications were required to be sought from the I.O. for the fair

adjudication of the matter, and after his transfer, he could only have

proceeded to pronounce the judgment and not sought such

clarifications, which is why the case has now been transferred. Thus,

there is no infirmity with the orders impugned herein.

6. This Court has heard arguments addressed by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State and

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 5 of 18

perused the material on record.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

The Issue

7. The issue which arises for consideration is whether, in the facts

and circumstances of the present case, the learned Predecessor Judge

was required to pronounce the judgment after reserving the matter,

notwithstanding his transfer, in terms of the transfer orders issued on

the administrative side of this Court, or whether the direction for

rehearing of final arguments by the learned Successor Judge can be

sustained in law.

Chronology of Proceedings After Conclusion of Final Arguments &

Judgment being Reserved

8. To place the relevant dates and events in proper perspective, it

is apposite to note that in the present case, final arguments on behalf

of all the accused persons as well as the State were concluded on

04.07.2025, whereafter the learned Predecessor Judge reserved the

matter for judgment. The judgment was initially fixed to be

pronounced on 30.07.2025. However, the judgment could not be

pronounced on the said date and on subsequent dates owing to certain

procedural contingencies. As informed to this Court at the Bar,

during this period, the learned Predecessor Judge had also sought

certain clarifications from the I.O. The record of the trial court

reflects that after the matter was reserved on 04.07.2025, it was listed

for pronouncement of judgment on 30.07.2025, 23.08.2025,

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 6 of 18

25.09.2025, 09.10.2025 and 25.10.2025.

9. Thereafter, on 07.11.2025, the petitioner along with the

remaining accused persons was produced before the learned

Predecessor Judge through video conferencing for the purpose of

pronouncement of judgment. On that date, however, the learned

Predecessor Judge directed that the accused persons be produced

physically before the Court on the next date of hearing, i.e.,

28.11.2025. The order passed in this regard reads as under:

“All accused have been produced from Judicial Custody

through VC. For pronouncement of judgement, accused

persons are directed to be produced physically on 28.11.2025.”

10. In the interregnum, vide Transfer Order No. 45/D-

3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 18.11.2025, the learned ASJ-03, Patiala

House Courts, i.e., the learned Predecessor Judge, was transferred

and posted to the North-East District, Karkardooma Courts. The said

transfer order itself, under Note No. 2 appended thereto, specifically

provided as follows:

“Notes:-

1. xxx xxx

2. The judicial officers under transfer shall notify the cases in

which they had reserved judgments/orders before relinquishing

the charge of the court in terms of the posting/transfer order.

The judicial officers shall pronounce judgments/orders in all

such matters on the date fixed or maximum within a period of

2-3 weeks thereof, notwithstanding the posting/transfer. Date

of pronouncement shall be notified in the cause list of the court

to which the matter pertains as also of the court to which the

judicial officer has been transferred and on the website.”

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 7 of 18

11. Subsequently, on 26.11.2025, another order issued in

continuation of the earlier transfer order reiterated the aforesaid

direction issued by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, mandating

pronouncement of reserved judgments by the transferred judicial

officers within the stipulated time.

“In continuation of order No. 47/D-2/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated

18.11.2025, Hon‟ble the Chief Justice of this Court has been

pleased to make the following directions:

“The judicial officers under transfer shall notify the

cases in which they had reserved judgements/orders

before relinquishing the charge of the court in terms of

the posting/transfer order. The judicial officers shall

pronounce judgements/orders in all such matters on the

date fixed or maximum within a period of 2-3 weeks

thereof, notwithstanding the posting/transfer. Date of

pronouncement shall be notified in the cause list of the

court to which the matter pertains as also of the court

to which the judicial officer has been transferred and

on the website.”

12. Despite the aforesaid mandate, when the matter was listed on

28.11.2025, it came up before the learned Successor Judge, who

directed that the case be listed for rehearing of final arguments from

06.01.2026 to 09.01.2026. The order dated 28.11.2025 records as

under:

“1. This matter is at the stage of Judgment

2. Ld. Predecessor of this Court had heard final arguments. In

order to avoid prejudice, I need to re-hear the final arguments.

3. Put up for final arguments on 06.01.2026 till 09.01.2026 at

02:00PM. Parties are given liberty to file written submissions,

if they have not filed, within 20 days from now by supplying

advance copy of the same to opposite parties...”

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 8 of 18

13. Later on the same day, the matter was again taken up at about

2:00 PM, whereupon the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the learned Predecessor Judge had already fixed the matter for

03.12.2025 for pronouncement of judgment. The relevant portion of

the subsequent order reads as under:

“1. This matter is at the stage of Judgment

2. Ld. Counsel for the accused Parvesh Mann, Gaurav Tyagi

and Ajay Mann has submitted that he has joined the

proceedings virtually with the ld. Predecessor Judge of this

court, who was transferred vide order No. 45/D -

3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 18.11.2025, as Judge, Family

Court-02, North East KKD, Delhi. He has further submitted

that Ld. Predecessor has told him that matter is kept for

03.12.2025 in post-lunch sessions for pronouncement of

judgement. Accordingly, matter is adjourned and be listed on

03.12.2025.

3. Next date of hearing i.e. 06.01.2025 to 09.01.2025 stands

cancelled…”

14. On 03.12.2025, the matter was taken up by the learned

Predecessor Judge. On that date, the learned Predecessor Judge

observed that certain clarifications were required from the I.O. and

that the presence of the I.O. would be necessary for the same.

Observing that such proceedings could not be conducted by him after

his transfer, the learned Predecessor Judge directed that the file be

placed before the learned Successor Judge. The relevant portion of

the order dated 03.12.2025 reads as under:

“ The matter was reserved for judgment and is therefore,

taken up by undersigned in terms of transfer order No. Endst.

No. 6260-6294/D-3/Gaz..IA/ DHC/2025 dated 18.11.2025 for

passing the judgment.

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 9 of 18

In the present matter, certain clarifications are required

which would require presence of IO and hearing of further

submissions. However, since these proceedings now cannot be

conducted by undersigned after his transfer from the court

where this matter is originally pending, it is directed that file be

placed before Ld. Successor Court on 04.12.2025 at 12.30 pm

with request to pass further appropriate directions. Copy Dasti.

Jail Authorities are directed to produce the accused persons

before Ld. ASJ-03, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts,

New Delhi on the said date and time.”

15. Thereafter, on 04.12.2025, the matter was taken up before the

learned Successor Judge, who once again directed rehearing of final

arguments and fixed block dates from 06.01.2026 to 09.01.2026. The

relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

“2. In terms of the last Order, Ld. Predecessor of this court had

noted that certain clarifications are required in the presence of

the I.O.

3. As such final arguments were heard by my Ld. Predecessor.

4. In order to avoid prejudices, this matter is now fixed for

Final Arguments. Block dates are given for completion of Final

Arguments, i.e. from 06.01.2026 to 09.01.2026. Arguments

will be heard at 02:00 PM.”

16. In above background, this Court notes that the judgment in the

present case was reserved by the learned Predecessor Judge on

04.07.2025 and was thereafter listed for pronouncement on several

dates, including 30.07.2025, 23.08.2025, 25.09.2025, 09.10.2025,

25.10.2025 and 07.11.2025. On 07.11.2025, the learned Predecessor

Judge was ready to pronounce the judgment; however, the same

could not be pronounced as the accused persons were produced

through video conferencing and were directed to remain physically

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 10 of 18

present before the Court on the next date, i.e., 28.11.2025. Before the

said date could arrive, the learned Predecessor Judge came to be

transferred. Consequently, on 28.11.2025, the matter was taken up by

the learned Successor Judge, who adjourned the matter to 03.12.2025

for pronouncement of judgment by the learned Predecessor Judge. On

03.12.2025, however, the learned Predecessor Judge transferred the

matter to the learned Successor Judge on the ground that certain

clarifications were required to be sought in the matter, which would

necessitate the presence of the Investigating Officer.

17. This sequence of events assumes significance, as the record

reflects that the learned Predecessor Judge was prepared to

pronounce the judgment on 07.11.2025 and deferred the same only

on account of the physical non-presence of the accused persons.

Effect of Transfer Orders and Binding Directions of This Court

18. It is also pertinent to note that the transfer order dated

18.11.2025, under Note (2) appended thereto, specifically mandated

that all transferred judicial officers shall notify the cases in which

judgments or orders had been reserved prior to relinquishing charge

and shall pronounce such reserved judgments or orders within a

period of two to three weeks from the date of transfer,

notwithstanding such posting or transfer. These directions were

reiterated by the subsequent order dated 26.11.2025, issued in

continuation of the earlier transfer notification, on the directions of

the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court.

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 11 of 18

19. This Bench also, in B.D. Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi &

Anr. (supra), had dealt with an identical issue and held, inter alia,

that upon transfer, a Presiding Officer shall prepare a consolidated

list of all cases in which orders or judgments have been reserved but

not yet pronounced and submit the same to the concerned District

Judge prior to relinquishing charge, and shall remain duty-bound to

pronounce such judgments or orders on the dates already fixed or, in

any event, within two to three weeks from the date of transfer, strictly

in accordance with the notes appended to the transfer list. The

relevant directions issued in the said judgment, which were also

circulated to all judicial officers in Delhi, read as under:

“28. Henceforth, it is hereby directed that in all cases where a

Presiding Officer is transferred and has reserved

judgments/orders prior to relinquishing charge, the following

protocol shall be mandatorily followed:

A. The Presiding Officer being transferred shall prepare a

comprehensive list of all cases in which orders or judgments

have been reserved by them but not yet pronounced.

B. This list shall be submitted to the concerned District Judge

before the date of relinquishing charge.

C. The Presiding Officer shall remain dutybound to pronounce

judgments/orders in all such matters on the date already fixed

or, at the latest, within 2–3 weeks from the date of their

transfer, as noted above, and in accordance with the notes

appended to the transfer list.

D. The District Judge of the concerned district shall ensure

compliance with the above directions and facilitate the

pronouncement of judgments/orders by the transferred

Presiding Officer in accordance with the mandate of the

transfer list.”

20. It is required to be noted that in the present case, the learned

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 12 of 18

Predecessor Judge neither complied with the instructions issued

alongside the transfer orders by the Hon‟ble Chief Justice nor

adhered to the directions laid down by this Court in B.D. Sharma v.

State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (supra). Instead, the matter was

transferred to the learned Successor Judge, despite the fact that final

arguments had already been heard and the judgment stood reserved.

The directions referred to above expressly required the submission of

a list of all reserved judgments and their pronouncement on the date

already fixed or, at the latest, within a period of two to three weeks

from the date of transfer.

21. Once final arguments had been fully heard, the learned

Predecessor Judge was bound to pronounce the judgment. Directing a

rehearing of arguments in such circumstances not only defeats the

mandate of the transfer orders and the law laid down by this Court,

but also results in avoidable delay in adjudication and places an

unnecessary burden upon the learned Successor Judge, who is

compelled to rehear a matter that has already been fully argued.

Timelines for Pronouncement of Judgment

22. It is also material to note that the trial in the present case stood

concluded on 04.07.2025, when the matter was reserved for judgment

and fixed for pronouncement on 30.07.2025. Section 353 of the

Cr.P.C. provides that the judgment in every trial before a criminal

court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open court

immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 13 of 18

time, of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.

Although the statute does not prescribe a specific time-limit for such

“subsequent time”, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State

of Bihar (supra) has clarified that the same should not ordinarily

exceed six weeks. The relevant observations are as under:

“8. The intention of the legislature regarding pronouncement of

judgments can be inferred from the provisions of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (1) of Section 353 of the Code

provides that the judgment in every trial in any criminal court

of original jurisdiction, shall be pronounced in open court

immediately after the conclusion of the trial or on some

subsequent time for which due notice shall be given to the

parties or their pleaders. The words "some subsequent time"

mentioned in Section 353 contemplate the passing of the

judgment without undue delay, as delay in the

pronouncement of judgment is opposed to the principle of

law. Such subsequent time can at the most be stretched to a

period of six weeks and not beyond that time in any case.

The pronouncement of judgments in the civil case should not

be permitted to go beyond two months.”

(Emphasis added)

23. The BNSS, 2023 also, by virtue of Section 258, prescribes a

time-limit of 30 to 45 days for pronouncing judgment in a criminal

trial, after conclusion of trial.

Assessment of the Impugned Course of Action and Resultant Prejudice

Caused to the Accused

24. What weighs significantly with this Court is the manner in

which the matter was repeatedly listed for pronouncement of

judgment by the learned Predecessor Judge. The record reflects that

the case was fixed on several dates exclusively for pronouncement

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 14 of 18

and, in particular, on 07.11.2025, the order sheet reveals that learned

Predecessor Judge was prepared to pronounce the judgment but

deferred the same only for the reason that the accused persons were

appearing through video conferencing and were directed to remain

physically present before the Court. It is also relevant that the said

order mentioned that one of the accused i.e. the petitioner herein was

a high-risk category prisoner, and accordingly, it was directed that

appropriate measures be taken to produce him physically on

28.11.2025. No clarification of any nature was sought from the I.O.

on that date. This sequence of events leaves little room for doubt that

the judgment was, in fact, ready for pronouncement. Had the learned

Predecessor Judge expressed, even prima facie, that the judgment

was not ready due to any pending clarification, the conclusion of this

Court may have been different.

25. The subsequent observation made on 03.12.2025, that certain

clarifications were required from the I.O., therefore, when seen in the

backdrop of repeated listings for pronouncement over a period of

nearly five months, raises serious concerns. It is difficult to reconcile

the readiness to pronounce judgment on 07.11.2025 with the later

position that the matter required further clarification. Judicial

proceedings cannot oscillate between readiness and uncertainty in

this manner, particularly after the trial has concluded and the case has

stood reserved for judgment for a considerable period of time i.e. for

about five months.

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 15 of 18

26. This Court is also conscious of the practical and constitutional

implications of directing a de-novo rehearing of final arguments at

this stage. Re-hearing a matter of this nature, involving multiple

accused and a lengthy trial under a special statute, would inevitably

consume substantial time. The petitioner has already been in judicial

custody for more than five years. After the conclusion of trial, the

accused waited for another five months for the pronouncement of

judgment. For an accused, especially one in custody, the period after

the judgment gets reserved, each day is spent in anxious anticipation

of the outcome. To now compel the accused to undergo another

round of final arguments before a new judge would amount to

prolonging uncertainty and, in effect, would result in serious

prejudice.

27. Courts must remain mindful of the human element inherent in

criminal adjudication. While procedural fairness is undoubtedly

important, it cannot be carried to an extent that defeats substantive

justice. In the present case, directing a rehearing would not further

fairness; instead, it would cause avoidable delay and hardship to the

accused and undermine the finality of a trial that has already

concluded.

28. Equally important is the institutional dimension of the issue.

The directions contained in Note (2) appended to the transfer order

dated 18.11.2025, and reiterated by the subsequent order issued on

the directions of Hon‟ble the Chief Justice of this Court, were neither

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 16 of 18

casual nor optional. They were issued precisely to avoid situations

such as the present one, where reserved judgments remain

unpronounced due to transfers. Permitting a departure from these

directions on the ground of belatedly perceived “clarifications”

would, in effect, dilute their binding nature and open the door to

circumvention. Such an approach, if accepted, may create a precedent

where matters in which judgments have already been reserved are,

after transfer of the Presiding Officer, sent back to the successor court

on tenuous grounds, thereby unsettling the settled procedure

governing pronouncement of reserved judgments and introducing

avoidable uncertainty into the judicial process.

29. It is again clarified that this is not a case where, immediately

upon reserving judgment, the learned Predecessor Judge found it

necessary to seek any clarification and acted accordingly. On the

contrary, the matter remained reserved for nearly five months,

despite the settled legal position that judgments ought to be

pronounced immediately or not later than six weeks, as held by the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court, and as per BNSS, within 30 to 45 days.

During this entire period, the case was repeatedly listed only for

pronouncement of judgment, and a specific date was eventually fixed

after directing the physical production of the accused. In such

circumstances, the later observation that further clarification was

required cannot justify transferring the matter to the learned

Successor Judge and directing rehearing of final arguments,

particularly when no such requirement was indicated during the

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 17 of 18

extended period for which the judgment remained reserved and the

matter was repeatedly listed solely for pronouncement.

30. Jurisprudence on speedy justice makes it clear that avoidable

and unexplained delay, when accompanied by demonstrable

prejudice, renders the process arbitrary and unconstitutional. Justice

delayed is justice denied, and any attempt to prolong proceedings by

reopening arguments after the matter stood closed and reserved for

pronouncement of judgment is liable to be held vitiated in law.

Conclusion & Decision

31. Therefore, in the present case, sending back the case to the

learned Successor Judge in December 2025, when the final

arguments were concluded in early July 2025 and the matter

remained reserved for pronouncement of judgment for five months

with the learned Predecessor Judge, would be manifestly unjustified

and contrary to settled legal principles, as well as destructive of the

right of an accused to a speedy trial.

32. In view of the foregoing discussion and the undisputed fact

that Sessions Case No. 143/2020 was heard in its entirety and

reserved for judgment by the learned Predecessor Judge for five

months, this Court is of the considered opinion – for the reasons set

out above – that the learned Predecessor Judge was duty-bound to

pronounce the judgment in the said case.

33. Accordingly, Sessions Case No. 143/2020, arising out of FIR

No. 207/2019, registered at P.S. Special Cell, Delhi for offences

CRL.M.C.9064/2025 Page 18 of 18

punishable under Sections 3/4 of the MCOCA, is directed to be

transferred from the Court of the learned ASJ-03, Patiala House

Courts, New Delhi, to the Court of the learned Predecessor Judge,

presently posted as Judge, Family Court-02, North-East District,

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, for the purpose of pronouncement of

judgment, in compliance with Order No. 45/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025

dated 18.11.2025 and Order No. 48/D-2/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated

26.11.2025. The judgment be pronounced by the learned Judge

within a period of 2-3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

34. It is further clarified that the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by

the learned ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, directing rehearing of final

arguments, is hereby set aside, and the dates fixed pursuant thereto

stand cancelled.

35. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of.

36. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

JANUARY 05, 2026/ns

T.D./T.S.