The central legal point established in the judgment is the principle of fair trial and the independence of judges in delivering justice, emphasizing that the mere apprehension of bias and lack of fair trial is not sufficient to warrant the transfer of a case.

1. This transfer petition was placed before us for hearing on 21st August, 2000 and on that day while dismissing the same we stated that reasons would follow. Now, we narrate the reasons for the same.

2. Petitioner, who according to the facts stated in the list of dates, was Minister for Electricity in the Government of Kerala and MLA or MP for over 30 years and has been convicted under S.5(1)(d) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has filed Criminal Appeal before the High Court of Kerala. This petition is filed by him for transferring the pending appeal to the High Court of Karnataka. Question, therefore, which requires consideration in this petition is whether the apprehension of the petitioner that he would not get justice in the criminal appeal if decided by the High Court of Kerala is genuine and justifiable?

3. The petitioner and a former Chairman of Kerala State Electricity Board were prosecuted for the offences punishable under S.5(1)(d) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and also under S.120-B IPC, on the charge that by abusing his position the petitioner sold 12241440 units of Kerala electricity to the State of Karnataka to be supplied to M/s. Graphite India Ltd., Bangalore, a private industry in the State of Karnataka and thereby enabled the said company to make pecuniary advantage of Rs. 19,58,630.40 and more by way of resultant profit. By judgment and order dated 20.5.1996, the Inquiry Commission and the Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, found the accused guilty under S.5(1)(d) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. Against that judgment and order Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 1996 filed by the petitioner is pending for hearing before the High Court of Kerala. The State had also filed an appeal for enhancing the sentence. The appeals were heard by the learned Single Judge in October/ November, 1998 and the judgment was reserved. Thereafter, by judgment and order dated 6.7.2000, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench by stating that the matter involved question of law and facts of public importance. It is stated that on the same date, the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court directed to post the appeals for hearing before a Bench of Mr. P.K. Balasubramanian and Mr. Hassan Pillai, JJ.

4. Thereafter, on 24th July, 2000, petitioner filed an application before the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court that appeals be placed before a different Bench on the ground that Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanian had effectively worked against him as an advocate before Justice K. Sukumaran Commission of Inquiry, which was appointed by the State Government in December, 1985. The Inquiry Commission was appointed to inquire into some of the malpractices in the execution of the rectification work in a Hydro-Electric Project called Edamalayar Project, consequent on the discovery of leak in its Power Tunnel. It was stated in the application that petitioner bona fide apprehended that the learned judge would be prejudiced against him in spite of passage of time and his elevation as a judge of the High Court. Therefore, it is just and fair that he may not hear the appeals filed by him and filed against him on the ground that justice should not only be done but it should also appear to be done.

5. In this transfer petition, petitioner changed his version and submitted that criminal appeal pending before the High Court of Kerala be transferred to the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore on the ground that a fair and reasonable trial is not possible in the State because the Government and that the press in the State have by their vicious campaign created a situation and impression among the public that the petitioner has committed irregularities, illegalities and c