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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 64

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Shri. Rajesh Das, I.P.S - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. By the Superintendent of Police-II, Egmore, Chennai - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 28715 of 2023 & Crl. M.P. No. 19965 of 2023
Decided On : 09-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:V. Prakash, Senior Counsel, M. Vijaya Mehanath, Advocate. For the Respondent: A. Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor.

The principle that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done, and the threshold of reasonable apprehension of bias in a criminal case.

Headnote:

Transfer Petition - Criminal Appeal - Section 354A(2) of IPC, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, Section 341 read with 109 of IPC - The court discussed the grounds for transfer of the case, the principles of fair and impartial hearing, and the conduct of the petitioner in seeking adjournments and filing transfer petitions. The court found that the petitioner's conduct did not warrant the transfer of the case and directed the petitioner to appear before the lower Appellate Court for final arguments.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to transfer the criminal appeal from the Principal District Judge, Villupuram to another Sessions Court within the same Sessions Division, alleging bias and unfair hearing.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's conduct did not warrant the transfer of the case and directed the petitioner to appear before the lower Appellate Court for final arguments.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's grounds for transfer of the case were justified and warranted a fair and impartial hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done, and considered the conduct of the petitioner in seeking adjournments and filing transfer petitions.

Final Decision: The criminal original petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to be present before the lower Appellate Court for final arguments, with a directive for the lower Appellate Court to pass final judgment expeditiously.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to withdraw and transfer the Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.59 of 2023 from the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram to any other Sessions Court in any other District.)

1. This criminal original petition has been filed seeking for the withdrawal and transfer of the case in Crl.A.No.59 of 2023 from the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram to any other Sessions Court within the same Sessions Division.

2. The petitioner faced trial in C.C.No.231 of 2021 for the offence under Section 354A(2) of IPC, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibiton of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 341 read with 109 of IPC. The leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Villupuram by judgment dated 16.06.2023 convicted the petitioner for all the above offences and appropriate sentence was also imposed against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court filed an appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram and the same was taken on file in C.A.No.59 of 2023.

4. The petitioner has filed this transfer petition on the ground that he will not have a fair and impartial hearing of the appeal and that he has a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done to him.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not alleging or casting any aspersions or motive on the Appellate Judge and that this transfer petition has been filed only on the ground that he has entertained a reasonable apprehension in his mind that he will not have a fair and impartial hearing. In order to substantiate such an apprehension entertained by the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel brought to the notice of this Court certain events that had taken place in the course of the proceedings.

6. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is already an adverse publicity made against the petitioner and that itself is going against the petitioner in effectively defending himself in this case. It was further contended that the petitioner was suffering from heart ailments and he had to take post operative care. When the supporting medical records were filed before the Court below while seeking for an adjournment of the final hearing of the case, it was brushed aside by the Court below and the Court below went to the extent of fixing a date for passing judgment even without hearing the appellant. This order dated 07.10.2023 was put to challenge before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1856 of 2023 and this case was disposed of by an order dated 02.11.2023, by issuing certain directions to the petitioner and the lower Appellate Court. The time limit that was fixed was subsequently modified by an order dated 20.11.2023. Since the petitioner found that the lower Appellate Court was proceeding further with the appeal in a hurried manner without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, a transfer petition was moved before this Court. This was brought to the notice of the lower Appellate Court and in spite of the same, the lower Appellate Court was insisting for arguing the main appeal. Once again, the lower Appellate Court fixed a date for pronouncing the judgment without hearing the side of the petitioner. All these facts, cumulatively have led the petitioner to entertain a reasonable apprehension that he will not get fair justice before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel urged this Court to transfer the case to some other Sessions Court within the same District.

7. The learned Senior Counsel in order to substantiate his submissions relied upon the following judgments:

    (a) L.A.Raju vs. State of Mysore reported in (1952) 2 SCC 52.

    (b) Gurcharan Dass Chadha vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (1966) 2 SCR 678.

    (c) S.Parthasarathi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reporte

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