PARASHURAM DATARAM SHAMDASANI Vs. HUGH GOLDING COCKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is ran application for transfer of a case filed by the petitioner under Section 282 of the Indian Companies Act against the auditors of the Central Bank from the Court of the Third Presidency Magistrate to the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate. The application is based on two grounds, first that the Third Presidency Magistrate is disqualified from trying the case under Section 556 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that he is a share holder in the Central Bank of India Limited, and, secondly, that on account of certain events that have happened the applicant has reason to apprehend that he will not have a fair and impartial trial before the learned Magistrate.

(2.) It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the learned Magistrate is personally interested as he is a share holder of the Central Bank. It appears that the learned Magistrate holds two or two and a half shares in the said Bank. The personal interest of the Magistrate alleged by the petitioner is so insignificant that ordinarily no presumption would be drawn that the learned Magistrate would in any event be biased in favour of or against the accused. In In Re: Rodrigues, P.A. 20 B. 502 where a compounder in the employ of Treacher and Co., was convicted by the Presidency Magistrate of criminal breach of trust and it appeared that the Magistrate was a share holder in the Company, it was held that the Magistrate was disqualified from trying the case, and that as a shareholder of the Company he had a pecuniary interest, however small, in the result of the accusation and, was, therefore, personally interested in the case. The decision in that case is based on an amplification of the principle that no man is allowed to be a Judge in his own cause, and rests on the decisions in the cases of Reg. V/s. Farrant (1887) 20 Q.B.D. 58 at p. 60 : 57 L.J.M.C. 17 : 57 L.T. 880 : 36 W.R. 184 : 52 J.P. 116, Allinson v. General Medical Council (1894) 1 Q.B.D. 750 : 63 L.J.Q.B. 534 : 9 R. 217 : 70 L.T. 471 : 42 W.R. 289 : 58 J.P. 542 and Leeson V/s. General Council of Medical Education & Registration (1889) 43 Ch.D. 366 : 61 L.T. 849 : 38 W.R. 303. It was held in Allinson's case (1894) 1 Q.B.D. 750 : 63 L.J.Q.B. 534 : 9 R. 217 :70 L.T. 471 : 42 W.R. 289 : 58 J.P. 542 (page 758 Page of (1894) 1 Q. B. D.-[Ed]. ): Where a person who has taken part in the judicial proceedings, or, you might say, has set in judgment on the case, has any pecuniary interest in the result, however small, the Court will not inquire whether he was really biassed or likely to be biased. The Court will say at once. It is against public policy that, a person who has any monetary interest, however small, in the result of judicial proceedings should take part in them as a Judge. The Court will inquire no further, but will say at once that he is disqualified.

(3.) In Sarjeant V/s. Dale (1877) 2 Q.B.D. 558 : 46 L.J.Q.B. 781 : 37 L.T. 153 it was held (page 567 Pegr of (1877) 2 Q.B.D.-[Ed.]: The law does not measure the amount of interest which a Judge possesses. If he has any legal interest; in the decision of the question one way he is disqualified, no matter how small the interest may be. The law, in laying down this strict rule, has regard not so much perhaps to the motives which might be supposed to bias the Judge as to the susceptibilities of the litigant parties. One important object, at all events, is to clear away everything which might engender suspicion and distrust of the tribunal, and so to promote the feeling of confidence in the administration of justice which is so essential to social order and security.