New Delhi, Jun 9 A Delhi court has set aside the acquittal of a man in a cheque dishonour case, saying that the trial court's verdict was a product of a mechanical "copy-paste" exercise that reflected complete "non-application of mind".
Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi was hearing an appeal filed by complainant Jai Prakash Narayan against the acquittal of Satender Singh in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
In an order dated June 6, the court said, “The advent of technology, word processors, and personal computers was intended to act as an administrative aid to the judiciary, bringing efficiency and speed to judicial drafting. However, it has birthed a dangerous and unacceptable malady, the 'Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V' (copy and paste) jurisprudence.”
The appellate court found that the metropolitan magistrate who acquitted the accused in May 2024 had reproduced factual findings and legal analysis from another cheque bounce case between the same parties without independently examining the evidence in the present matter.
"The impugned judgment is vitiated by gross perversity, absolute non-application of mind, and an injudicious reliance on the 'copy-paste' function of a word processor," the court said.
According to the complaint, Narayan had advanced a friendly loan of Rs 2 lakh to Singh in July 2017. A cheque issued towards repayment was dishonoured for "funds insufficient", following which a legal notice was served and a complaint was filed.
The trial court had acquitted Singh, observing that the complainant failed to establish his financial capacity to lend the amount and that there were discrepancies in the evidence.
Challenging the acquittal, the complainant argued that the judgment was a verbatim reproduction of an earlier decision delivered in a separate case involving a different cheque and distinct facts.
The appellate court agreed, noting that the magistrate referred to another cheque number and the dishonour reason "drawer's signature differ", although the present case concerned the cheque number was returned for "funds insufficient".
"A judicial pronouncement is the solemn culmination of the application of a trained legal mind to the specific facts, pleadings, and evidence adduced in a particular trial. It cannot, and must not, be reduced to an act, where the operative reasoning is mindlessly plagiarized from a different case," the judge said.
The court held that when a trial court imports factual analysis from a different case without evaluating the evidence on record, the resulting judgment becomes unsustainable in law and amounts to a miscarriage of justice.
Setting aside the acquittal order, the court directed that the complaint case be placed before the principal district and sessions judge for assignment to a competent metropolitan magistrate for fresh hearing of final arguments and delivery of an independent and reasoned judgment based solely on the evidence in the case.
