High Court Of Delhi
SURESH KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 520 of 1980
Decided On : 11/05/1980
TRANSFER OF CASE - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 407(1)(II) - SECTION 407(2) - SECTION 407(3) - SECTION 408 - SECTION 409 - SECTION 297 - HIGH COURT - SESSIONS JUDGE - ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - CRIMINAL COURT - AFFIDAVIT - FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL - REASONABLE APPREHENSION - JURISDICTION - SUMMONS - WARRANT - SERVICE OF PROCESS - CROSS-EXAMINATION - CONTEMPT OF COURT - LEGAL PRINCIPLES - CATEGORY: CRIMINAL - SUB-CATEGORY: TRANSFER OF CASE
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Suresh Kumar, filed a petition under Section 407(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the transfer of a case from the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, to another competent court. The petitioner alleged that he was not given a fair and impartial trial due to the anger and bias of the learned trial judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of not having a fair and impartial trial. The court observed that the learned trial judge's remarks, though not strictly called for, did not create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of a seasoned advocate like Shri Soni. The court further held that the learned trial judge was justified in issuing summons and warrants to compel the attendance of the petitioner, as the prosecution had failed to produce the petitioner as a witness. The court also held that the learned trial judge did not act out of anger or bias in allowing lengthy cross-examination of a prosecution witness.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was denied a fair and impartial trial due to the anger and bias of the learned trial judge? 2. Whether the learned trial judge was justified in issuing summons and warrants to compel the attendance of the petitioner? 3. Whether the learned trial judge acted out of anger or bias in allowing lengthy cross-examination of a prosecution witness?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A reasonable apprehension of not having a fair and impartial trial must be based on substantial grounds and not merely on the hypersensitivity of a party. 2. The court has the jurisdiction to issue summons and warrants to compel the attendance of witnesses, even if the prosecution fails to produce the witnesses. 3. The court has the discretion to allow cross-examination of witnesses, and it is for the witness to seek protection if he feels harassed by the counsel for the defense.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for transfer of the case.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition moved by the complainantsuresh Kumar under sub-section (6) of s. 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for transfer of the case State v. Om Pal Singhand others, under Ss. 364, 365, 342, 506, T. P. C. , from the court ofshri P. K. Bahri, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, to some other competentcourt.
( 2 ) UPON an F. I. R. lodged with the A. C. Police (Crime) on 21/08/1978, at 10. 45 P. M. , a case was instituted against the accusedrespondents on the allegations that on 20/08/1978, at about10. 30 P. M. in the night, the complainant Suresh Kumar and one Misssushma Chaudhary were going in a car No. BRP 651 towards Jamunabazar within the jurisdiction of P. S. Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Theywere invested by about ten-eleven persons who emerged out of twotaxis and drove them away to a big building on the roadside. Theywere beaten, detained and forced to write some letters and pose forphotographs. The identity of only three abductors could be established. They were, (1) Om Pal Singh, Office Secretary of the All India Kisansammelan, (2) K. C. Tyagi, General Secretary of the Yuva Janata,and (3) A. P. Singh, a Janata (S) worker. The investigation is alsoalleged to have disclosed that the said building was that of a collegein village Patia near Modi Nagar and that Om Pal Singh had been ateacher in 1968 in the said college and several criminal cases havebeen registered against him at Meerut. The challan was filed on 1/12/1978. Shri Soni was engaged by the complainant on 5/12/1978. Upon investigation report of the police and commitment bythe magistrate, charges under Ss. 341, 342, 364, 365 and 506 read withs. 34, Indian Penal Code. , were framed on 3/08/1979, against Om Pal Singhand K. C. Tyagi. The third accused A. P. Singh was absconding. Thecase was being fixed for evidence from November 1979. The proceedings were, however, stayed by this Court on 25/10/1979, at theinstance of the complainant who had filed a revision petition againstthe order of framing of charges. But that petition was dismissed byme on 18/03/1980. The trial commenced before the said Addl. Sessio s Judge on 21/04/1980. On that date, the learned Judgefixed various dates of evidence for various witnesses. The complainantsuresh Kumar had engaged Shri O. P. Soni, Advocate, to appear onhis behalf in the court. The Additional Public Prosecutor has written tosay that he has been conducting the case personally and had nevergiven any instructions or directions to conduct the case on behalf of theprosecution to Shri O. P. Soni. The complainant Suresh Kumar wascalled on 17/07/1980. A summons was issued on 23/04/1980,and it appears that it was received on his address on 27/06/1980. The signatures on the summons look like that of some gupta . Theprocess server, however, reported that the service had been effected.
( 3 ) ON 17/07/1980, since there was a report that service hadbeen effected, and Suresh Kumar was absent, the learned Judge inquired of Shri Soni whether the complainant could come to the court nextday. The court was informed that the complainant was out of station. The court then directed that bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 500. 00be issued for 22/07/1980. A notice under S. 350, Criminal Procedure Code. , be alsoserved on Suresh Kumar for his absence. These proceedings wereprominently reported in the newspapers; in the Hindustan Times of 18/07/1980, the headline was "warrants of Arrest Against Suresh". The bailable warrant was returned unserved with the report that Sureshkumar was not available at the address given. On 23/07/1980, anapplication was moved by Shri O. P. Soni for cancelling the warranton the ground that the complainant had been in Bihar since 20/06/1980, but no order was passed. The complainant also moved anapplication for summoning the third accused A. P. Singh. This prayerwas allowed, so that the trial of all the three accused could proceedjointly. A. P. Singh was summoned. He appeared on 26/07/1980,and after
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.