Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R.S. Ramanathan, J.
C. Anandane - Appellants
Vs.
State - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 26272 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided On: 11.12.2014
Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 3 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 243 - Challenging the jurisdiction of CBI – Claim of compensation - Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner also submitted that as per Section 3 of Prevention of Corruption Act Central Government or the State Government by notification in Official Gazette appoint as many Special Judges, as may be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of cases as may be specified in notification to try offences Any offence punishable under this Act Any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified in clause P.C. Act and person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Special Judge under this Act unless he is or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under Code of Criminal Procedure – Therefore learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 3 of Prevention of Corruption Act even though Presiding Officer is a Sessions Judge, or Additional Sessions Judge, or Assistant Sessions Judge, unless, he is authorized by notification given in Official Gazette, appointing him as Special Judge he cannot try the case pending under Prevention of Corruption Act. Admittedly, in this case Presiding Officer was not appointed as Special Judge and he passed orders dismissing the Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 243 and by virtue of notification passed – Held, Bias must be shown to be present. Probability of bias, possibility of bias and reasonable suspicion that bias might have affected the decision are terms of different connotations - They broadly fall under two categories, i.e., suspicion of bias and likelihood of bias - Likelihood of bias would be possibility of bias and bias which can be shown to be present, while suspicion of bias would be probability or reasonable suspicion of bias - Former lead to vitiation of action, while the latter could hardly be foundation for further examination of action with reference to facts and circumstances of a given case - Correct test would be to examine whether there appears to be a real danger of bias or whether there is only a probability or even a preponderance of probability of such bias, in the circumstances of a given case - If it falls in the prior category, the decision would attract judicial chastise but if it falls in the latter, it would hardly effect the decision, much less adversely - Word bias in popular English parlance stands included within the attributes and broader purview of the word malice, which in general connotation, means and implies spite or ill will - It is also now a well settled proposition that existence of the element of bias is to be inferred as per the standard and comprehension of a reasonable man - Bias may also be malicious act having some element of intention without just cause or excuse. In case of malice or ill will, it may be an actual act conveying negativity but element of bias could be apparent or reasonably seen without -any negative result and could form part of a general public perception Bearing these principles in mind, and having regard to the findings given above, there is no likelihood of bias and in my opinion there cannot be any likelihood of bias on the part of the Judicial Officer and there is no basis for reasonable suspicion of bias, as petitioner himself did not attribute any allegation against the Judicial Officer – Therefore court find any bona fide or merit in this Petition - In result this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed Consequently connected M.P. is closed - Petition dismissed
R.S. Ramanathan, J.
1. This Petition is filed, seeking to transfer the case in Spl. C.C. No. 1 of 2008 from the file of the learned Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act), Puducherry, to any other appropriate Court. Mr. N.R. Elango, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, after the examination of D.W. 1, it was realised that 9 more witnesses have to be examined. Hence, the Petition, viz., Crl. M.P. No. 996 of 2014 was filed on 04.08.2014, for examination of nine witnesses. The said Petition was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, by order, dated 13.08.2014, and the same is challenged in Crl. R.C. No. 856 of 2014. Even after Crl. R.C. No. 856 of 2014 was listed by this Court, and the same was brought to the knowledge of the learned Special Judge, the learned Special Judge was insisting upon the petitioner to proceed with the arguments. Therefore, the petitioner has apprehension that the learned Special Judge has pre-determined the issue.
2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, Crl. O.P. No. 22500 of 2014, was filed by the petitioner's son, challenging the jurisdiction of CBI to conduct the investigation, Crl. O.P. No. 24323 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner for altering the charge by reason of death of his wife/third accused. The said two Petitions are pending before this Court. Eventhough the same was brought to the knowledge of the learned Special Judge, he did not wait for disposal of those Petitions by this Court and insisted upon the petitioner to argue the case. Therefore, the petitioner is apprehending that he may be jeopardised. Hence, the present Petition was filed to transfer the case to some other court.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, as per Section 3 of Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act), the Central Government or the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as many Special Judges, as may be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of cases as may be specified in the notification to try the offences, viz., a) Any offence punishable under this Act; b) Any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified in clause (a) of P.C. Act and the person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Special Judge under this Act, unless, he is or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per Section 3 of Prevention of Corruption Act, eventhough the Presiding Officer is a Sessions Judge, or Additional Sessions Judge, or Assistant Sessions Judge, unless, he is authorised by the notification given in the Official Gazette, appointing him as Special Judge, he cannot try the case pending under Prevention of Corruption Act. Admittedly, in this case, the Presiding Officer was not appointed as Special Judge and he passed orders dismissing the Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 243(1) Cr.P.C.. and by virtue of the notification, dated 31.10.2014, passed in G.O.Ms. No. 2, the Presiding Officer was appointed as Special Judge. In that notification, it is stated that the notification shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 24.06.2014 and retrospective effect cannot be given regarding appointment and therefore, the order passed by the learned Special Judge in Crl. M.P. No. 996 of 2014, on 13.08.2014, is without jurisdiction and not valid and in the absence of notification, the Presiding Officer usurped the power of Special Judge and directed the petitioner to submit his arguments. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is reasonable, and hence, the case is liable to be transferred to some other Court.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgments reported in Bakul Cashew Co. and Another v. Salex Tax Officer,
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
