SHIDDAPPA SHIDALINGAPPA MUGALKOD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under S.407 of CrlPC 1973, is made by the accused in SC.88 of 1974 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Bijapur, for transfer. The petition is supported by an affidavit filed by the Advocate who defended the accused in the trial. As the affidavit contained serious allegations pgainst the Presiding Officer, his remarks were called for. The learned Sessions Judge has denied the allegations as not correct. However, hee has stated that if this Court is pleased the case may be transferred to another Court.

(2.) It is significant to note that the averments made in the affidavit filed before this Court were set out in the application made on behalf of the accused on 31-1-1975 before the Sessions Judge, Biiapur. When a motion was made by Advocate for the accused seeking adjournment to apply for the transfer of the case on the grounds mentioned in the application the learned Sessions Judge has observed in the course of his order as follows :

(3.) If there was no truth in the allegations made in the application, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have denied them in the order which he had passed. He had the earliest opportunity to do so. Failure to do so gives rise to a doubt about the veracity of the subsequent denial made by him. It is unnecessary to probe into this master any further. Suffice it to say that the learned Sessions Judge, while administering criminal justice should remember that not only justice should be done but it should appear to have been dona. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have overlooked this principle while dealing with this case.