SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Ker) 61

Judges : PADMANABHAN,BALAKRISHNAN
M.N.DIVAKARAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Case No : Crl.M.C. No. 35 of 1986
Decided On : 02/14/1986
Advocates Appeared :
T.V. Prabhakaran; For Petitioner Public Prosecutor; For Respondent

The legal principle that bias need not be actual, but only needs to appear to a reasonable mind, and the emphasis on the need for judicial officers to avoid any appearance of prejudice or bias.

Headnote:

Transfer of Cases - Criminal Procedure - S.407 - Indian Penal Code, S.120-B, 463, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 - The court discussed the grounds for transfer of cases from a special court for trial of mark list cases, including allegations of bias, interference in examination of witnesses, and pre-conceived notions by the magistrate. The court emphasized the need for judicial officers to avoid any appearance of prejudice or bias and highlighted the legal principle that bias need not be actual, but only needs to appear to a reasonable mind. The court concluded that the petition for transfer lacked merit and dismissed it.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought transfer of cases from a special court for trial of mark list cases, alleging bias, interference in examination of witnesses, and pre-conceived notions by the magistrate.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations of bias and interference were not substantiated, emphasized the need for judicial officers to avoid any appearance of prejudice or bias, and concluded that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it.

Issues: Allegations of bias, interference in examination of witnesses, and pre-conceived notions by the magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal principle that bias need not be actual, but only needs to appear to a reasonable mind, and the emphasis on the need for judicial officers to avoid any appearance of prejudice or bias.

Final Decision: The petition for transfer lacked merit and was dismissed.

Judgment :-

1. This is one of several petitions filed under S.407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of cases from the file of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum, constituted as a special court for the trial of mark list cases. Along with his son the petitioner was prosecuted in C.C. 9/84 for offences punishable under S.120-B, 463, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with S.34 thereof. Shri. D. Vijayaraghavan is the judicial Officer presiding over that court. He has disposed of some of the cases, out of which many ended in conviction and some in acquittal or discharge. The necessity for constitution of such a court arose as a result of unearthing several kinds of frauds as a result of which many rich and influential persons and their children were suspected to have boosted the marks secured in university examinations for the purpose of securing admission to professional and other courses. These frauds were brought to limelight consequent on a decision of this Court. After constitution of the Special Court, considering the gravity of the matters to be decided and the type of persons to be dealt with, this Court has taken particular care to select a proper person to man the court.

2. It is in the wake of these backgrounds that many petitions were filed before this Court and the Supreme Court to transfer cases from the file of the said court. All the earlier petitions were dismissed either by this Court or the Supreme Court and Special Leave Petitions filed before the Supreme Court against some of these orders were also dismissed. This is the only petition of that nature now on the file of this Court and it came before us by a reference by the Single Judge before whom it came. The main grounds relied on by the petitioner to get the case transferred are: (1) The magistrate is haying a pre-conceived notion gathered from the evidence tendered before him in identical cases and this has resulted in bias, (2) When the magistrate was moved for adjournment for moving transfer petition by the junior counsel he expressed openly from the Bench that bigger persons tried and failed and the junior counsel is only a big zero, (3) The magistrate is inconveniently interfering with cross-examination of witnesses, not recording some of the questions and answers and he is also giving clues to the witnesses to answer questions, and (4) Tabulation sheet is the basic record produced in all the cases. In spite of different attacks from different angles in many cases by the defence the tabulation sheet was accepted in many cases and this approach is likely to prejudice his actions in other cases also.

3. Among the grounds taken the major one is ground number one. Before dealing with that ground, we shall consider the other grounds. In this connection it is pertinent to point out that we have called for and obtained the remarks of the magistrate on the specific allegations contained in the petition. One of the allegations is that when a petition was filed on 28-12-1985 expressing the intention to move a transfer petition the magistrate remarked "Nobody can do anything against me and several greater persons tried and failed. You are only a big zero." The magistrate has denied this allegation. From the remarks of the magistrate, it is seen that from 10-6-1985 onwards he granted adjournments due to the inconvenience of the senior counsel who appeared for the petitioner. Finally when he refused adjournment on 28-12-1985 the junior counsel who was present in court moved for adjournment on the ground that a transfer petition is going to be moved. After examining the witnesses present, the magistrate adjourned the case, after a month, to 28-1-1986 giving sufficient time to move for transfer. In his remarks, the magistrate says "when the stay petition was moved I read it over in open court so that the prosecutor may also hear the allegations. Becoming conscious of my 'being' and my existence after a while







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top