A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the trial court had violated the principles of natural justice by directing recovery of the compensation from the petitioner-police officer without following due process.

The petitioner had challenged an order passed by the Special Judge, POCSO, Kota, whereby an accused was acquitted and the State Government was directed to pay him ₹3 lakh as compensation for the period he remained in jail, loss of livelihood, physical and mental agony, and damage to his reputation. The trial court had further directed that the amount be recovered from the investigating officers, including the petitioner, and the then Superintendent of Police, Kota City.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that he had neither investigated the case nor participated in the arrest of the accused. He further submitted that at the time the FIR was registered, he was suffering from COVID-19. Most importantly, he argued that the recovery direction had been issued without any notice or opportunity of hearing.

Accepting the contention, the High Court noted that the impugned judgment itself showed that the petitioner had not been issued notice or given an opportunity to explain his position before the recovery direction was passed. It reiterated that before passing any adverse order against a person, including by a judicial court, the principles of natural justice—audi alteram partem—must be followed.

Holding that the trial court had violated due process, the High Court set aside the recovery direction insofar as it concerned the petitioner and remitted the matter to the Special Judge, POCSO, to pass a fresh order after issuing notice, providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and considering his explanation.