SURESH KEVALRAM KHEMANI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Revision Application was placed before me for the frst time on 23/08/2023 and on the said date, continuing the interim relief, it was directed to be listed on 24/08/2023. On the next date of hearing, it was directed to be listed on 14/09/2023 at 2.30 p.m., as the matters which normally involve considerable time, are taken up by at 2.30 p.m.. Accordingly, the Revision Application is listed today.

(2.) In the interregnum and to be precise, four days back, a communication addressed to me, with the cover refecting my residential address, from one Hiten Takkar, Plot No.16, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai - 400 057, is received at my residence in Mumbai, in my absence and it was handed over to me in the evening, pursuant to my return from the Court functioning. On uncovering of the envelope, I discovered one communication under the signature of one Shri Hiten Takkar and the subject of it was about the Criminal Revision Application, which is scheduled for hearing before me today. The opening paragraph of the said communication informs the manner in which my Predecessor Judge has recused him and on it being subsequently listed before another Bench, how the interim relief was continued illegally. Though I do not deem it appropriate to refer to the contents of the said letter, it is defnitely indicative, that favour or some benevolence is either done or attempted to be done, in favour of the Applicants, on some monetary terms. A request is, hence, made to dismiss the case and the take the Accused for trial.

(3.) Upon receipt of the letter, the option open to me is, either I recuse myself from the matter in hand, or continue with same, ignoring the accusations of bias.. Judicial impartiality is the most signifcant facet of justice and there can be no doubt, that a Judge is expected to decide the legal disputes placed before him, free of any personal bias or prejudice. A Judge may be impartial, but if a perception is carried by one party that he is not, then the recusal is the only option. In such a situation, it is expected for a Judge to consider, what it is that might possibly lead to a reasonable apprehension by a fully informed observer that the Judge might decide the case, other than on merit and whether there is "logical and suffcient communication" between the circumstances and the apprehension. The standard of recusal is one of "Real and not Remote possibility" rather than "probability". The bias defnitely operates in such an insidious manner that, a person may be quite unconscious of it's effect.