JUDGMENT

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. — This transfer application seeks the quashing of order dated 13.06.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Meerut whereby the Transfer Application No.257 of 2014, Amit v. State of U.P., moved by applicant-accused was rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA Record has been perused.

3. It seems that a criminal trial is pending in the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act), Meerut under Sections 302, 307, 452, 504, 506, 506/34 IPC relating to Case Crime No.524 of 2007, Police Station-Daurala. The accused-applicant Amit appears to have had a grievance against the Presiding Officer on certain grounds which are tantamount to serious allegations against his fair attitude and integrity both. Apart from this the grievance of the accused also seems to have emanate from certain adverse expressions allegedly given by the Presiding Officer during the course of hearing in the court regarding, the merits and ultimate bleak prospects of the case. The details of the facts alleged by the accused-applicant against the trial Judge were narrated in the transfer application which was moved before the court of sessions. The application was opposed tooth and nail by D.G.C.(Cri.) and when the court of sessions adverted its judicial mind on the averments made in the application moved against the Presiding Officer, he was of the view that the allegations were so patently absurd and the insinuations so improbable that they deserved not only outright rejection off the cuff but even this much was not required that the Presiding Officer should be called upon to furnish his comments on the allegations which were levelled against him. Certain case law of this High Court in this regard was also relied upon by the court of sessions while rejecting the transfer application which it did.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has been very fair in his submissions who presented a very balanced view of the matter. He has pointed out the fact that the accused was suffering incarceration for last several years and the offences for which he was being tried are also of the gravest nature. But it has been emphasized by the counsel that, to quote his own words, even the devil ought to be given his due. The time honoured conventional concept that justice should not only be done it should also appear to have been done has been strongly relied upon. It has been conceded by the counsel that even if the view taken by the Sessions Judge while rejecting the application be deemed, for the sake of argument, to be correct even then the order ought to have been passed at least after calling forth the comments of the Presiding Officer on the insinuations levelled against him. The unilateral rejection of the transfer application without even inviting the comments of the Presiding Officer seems to be, according to the counsel, a judicial order divested of its judiciousness. It is chiefly on this ground that the impugned order has been assailed. It has also been argued that if rightly or wrongly the accused had developed some apprehension and feared that a fair verdict may not be pronounced by the Presiding Officer then there was no harm in transferring the case to any other court of that district.

5. I have cogitated upon the submissions made at the bar and have perused the record in the light of the same. I agree with the view taken by the Sessions Judge that it was not necessary in law that whenever a transfer application is moved before the court, it should always without exception be attended with the procedure that comments should be called forth from the Presiding Officer in question whose fair integrity has been besmeared with foul allegations. I also agree with the view that at times the allegations may be so unfounded, so unsubstantiated, bristling with such improbabilities that no prudent man can ever justly arrive at the conclusion that they may be true and therefore in such cases it was very muc