However, the Bench said that CCTV footage of the trial court does indicate that the courtroom was fully packed and, therefore, in view of the multiple background voices, even the voice of Khosla was not properly audible.
“We are also cognizant of the fact that the Presiding Officer was to hear arguments on sentence and the convict had remained Office Bearer of Delhi Bar Association as well as of Delhi High Court Bar Association. Quite possibly, because of the aforesaid fact, many members of the Bar had collected inside the courtroom.”
The Bench noted that no presiding officer of a court should feel helpless in any such situation. Keeping in mind the sensitivity of any given case, the court can direct that such matter would be taken up through video conferencing. This, it said, would ensure that no untoward incident happens at the time of physical hearing.
“Moreover, even if the Court chooses to resort to physical hearing, Section 327 Cr.P.C can be pressed into service which provides any such court with ample powers, directing the public generally, or any particular person, to not have access to the Court room. Unfortunately, in the present matter, no direction in this regard was passed by the concerned Presiding Judge.”
Source: Barandbench
