HC raps judge for being hasty | delhi | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jun 29, 2017-Thursday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

HC raps judge for being hasty

An additional sessions judge hearing cases of electricity theft in south Delhi has earned the wrath of the higher judiciary for the second time in the past eight days, reports Harish V Nair.

delhi Updated: Feb 16, 2009 13:32 IST
Harish V Nair

An additional sessions judge hearing cases of electricity theft in south Delhi has earned the wrath of the higher judiciary for the second time in the past eight days.

On February 10, Delhi High Court judge Justice Mool Chand Garg slammed judge D.C. Anand for showing undue haste in issuing a show-cause notice for perjury against BSES for “filing false evidence” in the court after the distcom, due to an oversight, booked a dead man for abetting electricity theft.

On February 2, the court passed severe strictures against Anand for dismissing 29 cases filed by BSES in one stroke in a “fit of fury” on the ground that no representative from the distcom was present. Restoring the petitions, Justice Kailash Gambhir accused Anand of violating the “basic philosophy of justice delivery system”.

In the February 10 case, an inspection team of BSES had raided premises of Nehru Place residents Ishwar Chand and his father Mangli Ram and slapped them a bill of Rs 1.8 lakh. While Chand was booked for electricity theft, his father being the registered owner was hauled up for ‘abetment’. But Chand said his father had died long back, following which the distcom urged the court to cancel the charges, adding that Chand should have informed BSES about the death.

But Anand was of the opinion that BSES had committed perjury by submitting false evidence and issued them a show-cause notice.

Quashing the notice, Justice Garg observed the notice was not issued in accordance with law, as evidence had not been recorded. He took serious note of Anand continuing to issue show cause notices against the distcom on frivolous grounds “without adhering to the provisions of law” despite the high court staying his earlier notices.