Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

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