SATISH JAGGI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissing the transfer petition filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for transferring of Sessions Trial no.329/2005 (State through CBI v. Amit Jogi and 30 others), pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh to some other Court. The transfer was sought for primarily on the ground that the Sessions Judge before whom the trial was pending is the elder brother of a sitting MLA who is very close to the father of respondent no.3, one of the main accused persons. It was alleged that the father of respondent no. 3 was the previous Chief Minister of the state and that he and the brother of the Learned Sessions Judge belong to the same political party. It was further stated that the said MLA was very close to the father of respondent no.3 who was earlier the Chief Minister of the State. Therefore, according to the appellant, he was under a bona fide and genuine apprehension that he will not get justice if the trial is conducted and concluded by the present Sessions Judge. It was also stated that the major part of the trial was conducted by the third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. By order dated 21.6.2006 the case was transferred to the Court of the Session Judge, Raipur (Shri R. S. Sharma) who examined four prosecution witnesses and 21 defence witnesses. At that stage, Shri R. S. Sharma was transferred as Sessions Judge, Janigir- Champa and Shri Sanman Singh was posted in his place as the Sessions Judge. Therefore, prayer was made to transfer to the Court of Sessions Judge, Janigir-Champa, where the previous Sessions Judge was posted so that he could conclude the trial by camping at Raipur for that purpose. The High Court held that assurance of fair trial is imperative for the dispensing of justice and the primary consideration for the Court is to consider whether a motion of transfer is made out and the High Court is not required to lay stress on hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party. The High Court felt that the grounds set forth by the appellant seeking transfer cannot be considered to be sufficient to direct transfer. Merely because the brother of the trial Judge was a sitting MLA, that cannot be a ground to prima facie come to a conclusion that there would be pressure through either by the brother or father of the accused who was supposed to be close to his brother. It was further noted that the trial is at a final stage and about 150 prosecution witnesses and all the defence witnesses have been examined and what remains to be done is to hear the arguments and pass the judgment. Therefore, the prayer was rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that ultimately administration of justice rests on many principles and one of the fundamental principles is that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. The present case is not one where a mere allegation is made. There is no dispute that the brother of the present Sessions Judge is a sitting MLA belonging to a particular party of which respondent no.3's father was earlier the leader and the Chief Minister.