Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court A Will Must Be Proved as Per Law, Even If Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Decree Justice Must Not Be Sacrificed at the Altar of Expediency: Punjab & Haryana High Court Partially Allows CBI’s Plea to Summon Crucial Witnesses in High-Profile Bribery Case Victim Must Be Heard Before Granting Bail Under SC/ST Act: Rajasthan High Court Directs Police to Ensure Proper Notification A Party Cannot Approve and Disapprove the Same Claim in a Legal Proceeding: Orissa High Court Suspicion of Tax Evasion Justifies GST Confiscation Proceedings: Madras High Court Rejects Mukti Gold's Challenge Custodial Interrogation Not Necessary When Accused Cooperates; Personal Liberty Must Be Protected: Kerala High Court Directors Are Not Personal Guarantors of Company Debt: Delhi High Court Dismisses Suit Against Company Directors Mere Relationship with the Deceased Does Not Render a Witness Unreliable: Calcutta High Court Affirms Life Sentence for Brutal Murder Once a Property is Attached, Any Subsequent Sale is Legally Void Against the Decree-Holder: Andhra High Court Upholds Creditor’s Rights A Necessary Party Must Be Present for Complete Adjudication: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Rent Controller’s Order No Interest on Delayed Gratuity If Employee Had Outstanding Dues: Orissa High Court Dismisses Claim Pension is a Right, Not a Charity: Supreme Court Slams West Bengal Government for Denying Benefits Without Inquiry Land Cannot Be Reserved Indefinitely Without Acquisition: Supreme Court Strikes Down 33-Year-Old Reservation in Maharashtra Failure to Disclose Every Policy Is Not a Fraud: Supreme Court Orders Insurance Payout in Favor of Policyholder's Son Judicial Decisions Are Not Immune from Disciplinary Proceedings:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Allows Inquiry Against Judicial Officer

Case Transfer - Judicial Proceedings  Not Only Be Fair But Also Appear Fair: Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the transfer of a criminal case from Karnal to Sonipat, responding to concerns about the fairness of the trial proceedings. The judgment delivered by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi focused on maintaining the perception of justice being served, as well as addressing procedural anomalies that surfaced during the trial.The case originates from FIR No. 228 of 2015, registered under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 406, 418, 420, 466, 468, 471, 473, and 506, at Police Station Taraori. The case involves allegations of fraud, forgery, and criminal intimidation against the respondent, Badke Bhankaran Balakrishnan. The petitioner, Sumit Kumar Bindal, sought the transfer of the trial to another court, citing procedural irregularities and a lack of confidence in the current court's ability to deliver an impartial verdict.

A pivotal issue in the case was the trial court’s decision to exhibit an agreement dated January 7, 2014 (Ex. DA) at a very late stage of the trial on March 6, 2023. This document, which had not been presented earlier, significantly impacted the proceedings. The petitioner moved applications for forensic analysis of the document and to produce additional evidence to counter its impact, but these applications were questioned for their maintainability and subsequently dismissed on merits​​.

The petitioner highlighted several procedural concerns, including the listing and adjournment of the case without proper cause list updates and the perceived undue haste of the trial court in proceeding with the case. These anomalies collectively created an apprehension regarding the fairness of the trial​​.

Justice Bedi underscored the principle that "justice must not only be done but it must also be seen to have been done," referencing the precedent set in the case of Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhattisgarh​​. This principle was central to the decision to transfer the case to ensure the complainant’s confidence in the judicial process.

Justice Bedi remarked, "In the context of judicial proceedings, justice must not only be done but it must also be seen to have been done." He added that transferring the trial was necessary to "allay the apprehension of the complainant-petitioner without casting any aspersions on the trial court"​​.

The High Court’s decision to transfer the trial underscores its commitment to ensuring the integrity of judicial proceedings. By addressing the procedural concerns and emphasizing the importance of the appearance of fairness, the judgment aims to bolster public confidence in the legal system. This transfer is expected to set a precedent for handling similar cases where procedural irregularities may compromise the perceived impartiality of the court.

 

 Date of Decision: May 7, 2024

Sumit Kumar Bindal vs. Wadkesankaran Balakrishnan and anr.

Similar News