Jammu and Kashmir High Court concerned over trial judges making staff draft orders

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently expressed concern that many trial court magistrates were delegating the task of drafting judicial orders, particularly interim orders, to subordinate staff [Ashok Kumar Bhagat v. UT of J&K and anr.]..Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani cautioned that trial court magistrates are expected to either write their own orders or get it typed in their presence and under their dictation. "It is being observed that most of trial Magistrates entrust the drafting of the interim orders, including orders regarding regarding framing of charges to the subordinate staff, upon hearing the cases, under their verbal directions. The Magistrates are required to either write the interim orders under their own hand or let them be typed in their presence and under their own dictation," the High Court said. .The Court made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by a man accused of cheating, forgery and related offences. He had challenged a trial court order that framed charges against him. He argued that the trial court order was non-speaking (lacking reasons) and lacked any application of mind by the trial court judge. The petitioner's lawyer argued that the trial court had not cited the relevant legal provisions in its order..The High Court eventually declined to interfere with the trial court's order framing charges, noting that there did not appear to be any illegality with it. However, the High Court agreed with the petitioner's argument that the trial court's order was not drafted properly. .The High Court added that there was no need to set aside the trial court order since it was only irregular and not illegal. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the plea but instructed the trial magistrate to re-examine whether charges had been appropriately framed and, if necessary, alter or amend them."Criminal Courts have the power to amend or modify the charge at any stage of the trial ... there seems to be no merit in the instant petition, which is dismissed. However, the Trial Court shall see whether in the facts and circumstances of the prosecution case, the offences mentioned in the order dated 06.10.2024 are attracted or not. He shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the Counsel for the petitioner in that behalf and shall modify or alter the charge, if any, required in accordance with the law," the High Court ruling said. .Advocate Amit Gupta appeared for the petitioner.Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh appeared for the respondents..[Read Order]