Apart from these two orders, some other judgments passed by the judge Krishnakumar were also pointed out in the Registrar’s affidavit.
When the appellant was serving as a Special Judge (Marad Case), Kozhikode, in a session case, he directed the State Government to pay compensation to the tune of ₹1 Lakh to the accused and to recover the amount from the Investigating Officer and initiate departmental action as well.
This was set aside by a Division Bench of the High Court which observed,
“Sobriety is one of the most important and non-negotiable quality of a judge. A Judge’s decision to initiate penal action against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration in a case will be interpreted as an impulsive action, unsuitable for a judicious and sagacious mind expected of a judge, when it was taken devoid of any factual or legal foundation and actuated by personal predilections. We therefore, find the direction issued by the trial Judge to take action against P.Ws, 35 and 38 by way of initiating criminal prosecution and departmental action’ are devoid of any legal merit.”
When, the appellant while serving as Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam, he disposed of a Sessions Case after sending WhatsApp message to the accused regarding the posting of the case.
While setting aside this order, the Kerala High Court observed, “needless to point out that judicial impartiality and honesty are sacrosanct. Zeal to dispose as many cases as possible is a laudable quality for a Judge, especially at a time when we talk about docket explosion. But, it shall never be at the cost of quality of the judgment. Legal rights of a party shall not be a casuality in a hurry to dispose of cases.”
Source: Barandbench
