RAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the respondent to avoid the final hearing of this case and direct the appeal to be posted before another Bench. The reasons advanced by the respondent to avoid this matter are stated in paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the petition. The same read as under:

(2.) The learned Public Prosecutor has filed a detailed objection, particularly as referred in paragraph Nos.VII to XV. The same read as under:

(3.) Going through the reasons stated for allowing the petition and the contentions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor as extracted hereinabove, it could be noticed that trial and conviction of the respondent in C.C. No.2/2010, while I was functioning as the Special Judge, is the sole ground whereupon the respondent seeks to avoid this case to be heard by this Court. In fact, in the detailed objection, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the grounds urged in the petition are highly technical and hypothetical in nature. It is the trite law that a Judge has to decide a case based on the evidence available in the case and there is no restriction for a Judge to try or to hear a case or an appeal arose out of a totally different case, merely on the ground that the appellant/litigant there was tried and convicted by the same Judge earlier.