Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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