PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad high court (HC) has directed the district judge of Uttar Pradesh's Ghaziabad to investigate how two contradictory orders in a defamation case - one of them unsigned - were uploaded to the court's website.
"So far as conduct of the magistrate is concerned, the court finds that he was not careful. An unsigned, contrary order was uploaded. He has also not initiated any inquiry against the staff concerned. The court is informed that he is a young magistrate. Therefore, keeping in view his career, I am not passing any adverse order," Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery said on a petition filed by Parul Agarwal .
The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the unsigned order mentions the defamation complaint was dismissed, while the signed version states that the respondent was summoned under Section 500 (defamation) of Indian Penal Code.
The magistrate submitted an unconditional apology, explaining that the court staff "unintentionally" uploaded an unsigned draft without his consent.
The defamation suit by Agarwal was referred back to the trial court for a fresh order in accordance with law "after hearing the complainant expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months if there is no legal impediment".
"So far as conduct of the magistrate is concerned, the court finds that he was not careful. An unsigned, contrary order was uploaded. He has also not initiated any inquiry against the staff concerned. The court is informed that he is a young magistrate. Therefore, keeping in view his career, I am not passing any adverse order," Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery said on a petition filed by Parul Agarwal .
The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the unsigned order mentions the defamation complaint was dismissed, while the signed version states that the respondent was summoned under Section 500 (defamation) of Indian Penal Code.
The magistrate submitted an unconditional apology, explaining that the court staff "unintentionally" uploaded an unsigned draft without his consent.
The defamation suit by Agarwal was referred back to the trial court for a fresh order in accordance with law "after hearing the complainant expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months if there is no legal impediment".
