On January 24, a single-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Shamim Ahmed, stated that it is unacceptable and deplorable for judicial personnel to issue orders by filling in the blanks on printed proforma without using their judicial judgement. 

In quashing a summoning order issued by a magistrate in a criminal case that the High Court determined had been issued mechanically and caused a miscarriage of justice, the Court made the observation. 

The summons of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the ruling must indicate that the magistrate had devoted his attention to the facts as well as legislation relevant, Justice Shamim Ahmed noted.

A man who had been arrested for violating the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act had entered a plea before the court. 

He contested the criminal procedures, charge-sheet, and summons issued against him in the POCSO case before the High Court on the grounds that no evidence of an offence was presented. 

The applicant's attorney claimed that the summoning order was issued without using any judicial judgement and that the magistrate had taken cognizance only on a printed proforma. 

The State's attorney refuted the plea based on the evidence, claiming that the guy was accused of convincing a little child to flee with him. 

The State Attorney, however, did not contest the magistrate's decision to take the matter under printed proforma.

After hearing the arguments, the High Court concluded that the order in question was made in a robotic manner without the magistrate using his or her judgment or determining what offense was prima facie proven against the applicant-accused. 

The Court said, "The assailed cognizance decision delivered by the learned Magistrate is outside the recognised judicial norms." 

The Court ruled that using judgment is required when deciding whether the evidence acquired by the investigating officer provides sufficient grounds for proceeding and whether it appears that a law violation necessitated a criminal trial. 

The High Court stated that the involved magistrates have a duty to exercise discretion and should make sure that their orders do not suffer from a lack of judicial mind when cognizance is taken. 

The court further recalled that the Supreme Court had stressed in HN Rishbud v. State of Delhi that a magistrate must use judicial intellect when taking cognizance of an offense and not only act mechanically.

The Allahabad High Court's ruling in Abdul Rasheed and others v. State of UP was also cited, in which it was decided that judicial orders shouldn't be issued mechanically, such as by filling in the blanks on a printed proforma or applying a pre-made seal, etc. 

After considering the High Court's objections, Justice Ahmed finally revoked the cognizance order that had summoned the applicant-accused and remitted the case back to the POCSO court to be decided anew. A two-month deadline was set for the magistrate to follow suit. 

Case Title: Krishna Kumar v State
Citation: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 677 of 2023