Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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.

Latest Legal News