SHAMSHER RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second application for transfer filed by the complainant for the transfer of Sessions Trial No. 522 of 1980 (State v. Rang Bahadur and others) pending in the court of Sri S. D. N. Singh, Sessions Judge, Allahabad, to some other court of competent jurisdiction in the district.

(2.) THE first transfer application was made on two grounds: One, that one Sri T. N. Singh, SI Police Lines, Allahabad, was friendly with the Sessions Judge, and the former being a relation of one of the accused viz. Ravi Deo Narain Pandey, was interested in securing his acquittal in the case and was accordingly likely to influence the Judge. THE second, that the Sessions Judge had not recorded the statement of accused Ravi Deo Narain Pandey impartially. Both these ground were found not to be made out, and the application was rejected by an order dated 28-4-1982 with the observation that no case for transfer had been made out at that stage.

(3.) PARAGRAPH 28 refers to an information furnished by Sri Fateh Bahadur Singh to the investigating agency that accused Ravi Deo Narain was associated in the election compaign of Sri Vishwa Nath Pratap Singh. The report does not give any finding as to the actual participation or the part played, if any, by Ravi Deo Narain Pandey in the election compaign. It only refers to the information conveyed by Sri Fateh Bahadur Singh. The status of Ravi Deo Narain Pandey in the election or the role played by him or the degree of initimacy between Sri Vishwa Nath Pratap Singh and the accused have neither been disclosed nor suggested. No inference of closeness can in the circumstances be drawn on the basis of the information furnished by Sri Fateh Bahadur Singh. To be associated with an election is not necessarily to be close to a candidate. Intimacy is not a mere matter of association. It is the degree of attachment which is material. Though no personal knowledge of closeness of Sri Vishwa Nath Pratap Singh with Ravi Deo Narain Pandey has been asserted by the applicant, he has drawn the following inferences from the information referred to in paragraph 28 of the CID report, that Ravi Deo Narain Pandey was close to the Chief Minister that because of the closeness Sri Vishwa Nath Pratap Singh was interested in helping him in the proceedings-an assumption without any foundation; that because Sri Vishwanath Pratap Singh was interested in helping the accused Ravi Deo Narain Pandey the authorities conducted the proceedings in a manner helpful to him that because of the interest of the Ex-Chief Minister the Sessions Judge in order to oblige him for a support given to him in an administrative matter by late Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. S. P. Singh, the brother of the Chief Mininster, took a partisan view in favour of the accused Ravi Deo Narain in the proceedings of the trial. All this seems fanciful imagination. Neither the closeness! of accused Ravi Deo Narain Pandey with Sri V. P. Singh nor any interest of the latter in the case has been established from the material on record. Suggestions made in this regard bear no scrutiny and deserve to be rejected. The further suggestion that because of the interest Sri Vishwanath Pratap Singh the authorities and the Sessions Judge were trying to help the accused Ravi Deo Narain Pandey is also not made out from the record and has to be rejected further on the ground that the premise on which it is made does not subsists. I shall however, deal with the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel in regard to the unfairness of the trial as suggested by him. But before I do it it seems necessary to point out that the allegations made against Sri Vishwanath Pratap Singh lack the measure of responsibility and the care and caution which is required to be observed in a judicial proceeding. Sri Vishwanath Pratap Singh has not been made a party to the petition while the entire gamut of attack is grounded on an interest alleged to have been evinced by him in favour of accused Ravi Deo Narain Pandey. It is unfair to make accusations against a party and deny him the opportunity to meet them. It was put to the learned counsel for the applicant to clarify whether according to the applicant Sri Vishwanath Pratap Singh himself was trying to bring his influence to bear on the proceedings or whether the authorities were trying to do something to please him. Learned counsel fairly stated that there was no material available to the applicant to indicate any direct involvement of Sri Vishwanath Pratap Singh in the matter but the circumstances suggested an inference that the authorities were trying to protect the accused Ravi Deo Narain Pandey. When there was no material available against Sri Vishwanath Pratap Singh there was no justification to involve him in the controversy in the manner it was done. Interference with judicial proceedings is a serious matter and a person making allegation in this regard has to act with due care and caution. I have already found the aspersions made against Sri Vishwanath Pratap Singh as without substance and as one deserving to be rejected.