In cases involving apprehension of bias, the Court may order the transfer of cases outside the State to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done.

Headnote:
PRISONS ACT, 1894 - S. 52 - TRANSFER OF CASES - APPREHENSION OF BIAS - CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING TRANSFER.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a member of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha, sought the transfer of two criminal cases against him from the State of Punjab, alleging apprehension of bias due to his political rivalry with the Chief Minister and other influential individuals.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner had made sufficient allegations to show that certain strong parties were opposed to him and that he entertained a reasonable apprehension that he would not get justice in the cases within the State of Punjab.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had made out a case for the transfer of the criminal cases outside the State of Punjab due to apprehension of bias.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the principle of justice not only being done but also being seen to be done was of paramount importance. In the present case, the petitioner had made out sufficient circumstances to infer that he reasonably apprehended not getting justice in the cases within the State of Punjab.
Final Decision: The Court directed the transfer of the two cases to the Saharanpur District outside the State of Punjab for trial by a Magistrate chosen by the District Magistrate of Saharanpur.

Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J. :

This is a Petition by one Hazara Singh Gill for the transfer of two criminal cases (Nos. 33/3 and 33/4 of 1963) under S. 52 of the Prisons Act, pending for trial in the court of Mr. Sant Singh, Magistrate, First Class, Amritsar. The petitioner requests that these cases be transferred outside the State of Punjab for disposal. The facts, in so far as they have been admitted by the State of Punjab, are as follows :

2. The petitioner is a resident of village Rattoke in the Amritsar District. He was elected as member of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha in the last General Elections after defeating S. Hardip Singh, the brother-in-law of the Chief Minister of the State, S. Surrinder Singh Kairon, son of the Chief Minister, and S. Ranjit Singh Grewal, who was posted as Senior Superintendent of Police at Amritsar, have married sisters. S. Mukund Singh, the father-in-law of S. Surrinder Singh, owned vast lands. S. Mukund Singh died without leaving any male issue and the estate came under the court of Wards, and the petitioner obtained some of the lands from the Court of Wards. In May, 1960, the agitation for what is described as the Punjabi Suba was started and the petitioner was arrested under Ss. 411/414, Indian Penal Code, and a report was sent against him under Ss. l07/151, Cr. P. C., and a warrant was also issued. The petitioner was held for interrogation on a remand by the court. The petitioner was also arrested in a case under the Arms Act, and another, under the Indian Opium Act. His father and six others were arrested on 26-1-1961 under Ss. 107/151, Cr. P. C., but were discharged as a result of compromise in court. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment in the case under the Arms Act and that sentence has been upheld by the High Court. He was also convicted in a case under the Prisons Act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment, which sentence was also confirmed by the High Court. These sentences are to run consecutively. The two cases in which the transfer is asked for are now pending and they have been referred to the Magistrate by the Superintendent, Jail, Amritsar. The petitioner points out that another petition of S. Mohan Singh Tur was transferred from the Punjab to Saharanpur by this Court.

3. What is not admitted or evasively denied in the affidavit of the State Government are the following facts stated by the petitioner on affidavit : After his election to the Vidhan Sabha, he has not been able to attend any meeting because he has been arrested and continuously kept in jail, that the petitioner is a protagonist of the Punjabi Suba, and supported the Akali candidates as against the Sadh Sangat Board which is supported by the Chief Minister; and that in the criminal cases in which the petitioner was arrested, a bail of Rupees one lakh was demanded from him as also from his father and six others. Since such a heavy bail could not be furnished, his father and the other persons languished in jail for four months till they were discharged on compromise in court, while he continued in jail. Further, a suit has been filed against the petitioner by the widow of S. Mukund Singh for Rs. 12,500 for arrears of rent and for eviction, and in the written statement made by the petitioner in that suit, he has alleged that the Court of Wards is being specially continued to save the application of the ceilings on land to the property left by S. Mukund Singh. The petitioner has also claimed in that suit that if the arrears of rent have to be paid, they are payable only by S. Surrinder Singh and S. Ranjit Singh Grewal. This has annoyed them. Further, while he was in jail, S. Surrinder Singh with police force took possession of the lands in September, 1960, and though a criminal complaint was filed against S. Surrinder Singh for threatening the petitioner s wife with a gun, the complaint was dismissed by the court for default of appearance of the petitioner as he was in jail

Click Here to Read the rest of this document