R.R. Parekh v. High Court of Gujarat and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (12 Jul 2016)

Conduct of judicial officer can be used to conclude charge of misconduct

MANU/SC/0767/2016

Miscellaneous

The Supreme Court upheld a 2012 judgment of the Gujarat high court that confirmed charges against the Appellant-Civil Judicial Magistrate at Bhuj in his improper trial of two criminal cases pertaining to offences under the Customs Act 1962 and the Imports & Exports (Control) Act 1947. In those cases, though appellant had convicted the accused, he had awarded a sentence of imprisonment less than the minimum prescribed and all the accused were granted a set-off.

It cautioned that direct evidence of corruption would not always be forthcoming in such a case of misconduct, and it was for the disciplinary authority to determine if a pattern interference emerged implicating the judicial officer - deeming the approach “robust common sense”.
BR<> The ongoing investigation into the “oblique” motives of the Appellant did not deter the court from inferring deliberate malaise. It noted the enormous quantity of contraband articles in the original customs case: 275 silver slabs worth nearly Rs. 6 crore. The appellant was an experienced adjudicator and could not be found “unmindful” and unaware of the sentencing provisions in such a serious crime - particularly over two sittings. Moreover, the less-than-appropriate sentences were imposed in a manner which would not require the accused to remain in jail beyond judgment. It concluded that such a course of action was sufficient to prove a charge of misconduct against the appellant.

Nevertheless, it reduced the punishment - from one of dismissal - to compulsory retirement, given that the appellant had reached the age of superannuation.

Tags : JUDICIAL OFFICER MISCONDUCT SENTENCING CUSTOMS