Judgment 1. Through this Criminal Misc. No. 15967-M of 2002 filed under S. 407, Cr. P.C. read with S. 482, Cr. P.C. Ashish Kumar has prayed for the transfer of case R. C. No. 2(S)/94-S/U.V/S.II dated 18-4-1994 under S. 120-B read with Ss. 342/365, I.P.C. and Ss. 342 and 365, I.P.C. P.S. C.B.I., New Delhi, from the Court of Special Judge, Ambala to any other Court of appropriate jurisdiction in Haryana. 2. It is alleged by Ashish Kumar that this case is the outcome of the murder of three persons committed by respondents No. 2 to 5 while they were pursuing their legal remedy regarding the illegal harassment, at the behest of respondent No. 2, in this Court. Respondent No. 2 is Sumedh Singh Saini, formerly Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. Respondent No. 3 is Shri Sukhmohinder Singh Sandhu formerly Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. Respondent No. 4-Paramjit Singh is formerly SHO, Police Station, Focal Point, Ludhiana and respondent No. 5-Inspector Balbir Chang Tiwari is formerly SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, Ludhiana. It is stated that Shri Sumedh Singh Saini had personal animus against the proprietor of M/s. Saini Motors. His real sister was married to Harbhajan Singh, brother of Narender Saini who was one of the proprietors of M/s. Saini Motors who was closely associated with Vinod Kumar, brother of the petitioner Ashish Kumar and were being financed by him. Unfortunately, the said marriage did not work properly and resulted in divorce. Respondent No. 2-Shri Sumedh Singh Saini took it upon himself the destruction of the entire family of M/s. Saini Motors. He used police machinery indiscriminately which was aimed at harassing and terrorising every one connected with M/s. Saini Motors including the petitioner. Eventually, petitioners brother Vinod Kumar, his driver Mukhtiar Singh and Ashok Kumar, brother-in-law of the petitioner became target of the wrath of Shri Sumedh Singh Saini. Respondent No. 2 and they disappeared from the scene. Their whereabouts became unknown to those who would have been aware of their whereabouts if they had been alive. Matter was referred to C.B.I. for investigation. The C.B.I. went into the matter and filed challan in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala which has now been committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambala. Their whereabouts became unknown to those who would have been aware of their whereabouts if they had been alive. Matter was referred to C.B.I. for investigation. The C.B.I. went into the matter and filed challan in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala which has now been committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambala. It is stated that after filing of the challan while the matter regarding sanction for prosecution under S. 364, I.P.C. was still under consideration and respondent No. 2 (Sumedh Singh Saini) sought exemption from personal appearance in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala which was allowed. The said order was challenged in this Court and in the meanwhile, the case was committed to the Special Judge, Ambala. Even Special Judge, Ambala despite there being no cogent evidence, passed an order exempting personal appearance of respondent No. 2. 3. It is stated that Shri Sumedh Singh Saini should not have been allowed exemption when there was no cogent reason to allow him exemption. Even, Shri P. V. Narsimha Rao, former Prime Minister of India and Shri KPS Gill, former D.G..P., Punjab were not allowed exemption and they had to be before the Court for facing trial. It is stated that Shri Sumedh Singh Saini was, thus, shown undue favour in re : the grant of personal exemption to him by Special Judge, Ambala. It is further stated that special consideration is being shown to the accused whenever they appear in Court and respondent No. 2-Shri Sumedh Singh Saini is even offered a seat by the Special Judge while putting in appearance. According to special treatment to the accused by the Special Judge, Ambala itself points a "?", why the special treatment to the accused i.e. "whether there is any nexus between respondent No. 2-Sumedh Singh Saini and Special Judge, Ambala." It seems that respondent No. 2 and Special Judge, Ambala (Shri B. B. Parsoon) have known each other since before and as such the petitioner does not expect any justice from Shri B. B. Parsoon, Special Judge, Ambala. 4. It is further stated that it has been noticed by the petitioner that after the case is taken up the Special Judge had a couple of times asked the counsel of respondent No. 2 (Shri Anupam Gupta), Advocate, to stay back and meet him. 4. It is further stated that it has been noticed by the petitioner that after the case is taken up the Special Judge had a couple of times asked the counsel of respondent No. 2 (Shri Anupam Gupta), Advocate, to stay back and meet him. Special Judge (B. B. Parsoon) appears to be personally known to Shri Anupam Gupta, Advocate, Special Judge, Ambala appear to have soft corner for respondent No. 2 and his counsel Shri Anupam Gupta, Advocate. It is further stated that the case is pending consideration on charge since 6-9-2001. So far the Court has not been able to hear arguments on charge although the case has been adjourned 14 times for consideration on charge. Pace at which the case is proceeding before Shri B. B. Parsoon, Special Judge, Ambala shows that the maxim "justice delayed is justice denied" is not being taken note of by the Court and is being observed more in its breach than in its obedience. The Court is not anxious to deliver speedy justice to the parties. 5. Through Criminal Misc.No. 19874 of 2002 in Crl. Misc. No. 15967-M of 2002, the petitioner sought to correct the typographical error which has crept in, in para No. 4 of the main petition. What he wanted to say after correction was that it was not respondent No. 2 but respondent No. 3 who was being shown special consideration by the Court and is even offered seat by Special Judge, Ambala. Respondent No. 3 is Sukhmohinder Singh Sandhu, formerly Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. 6. Respondent No. 2 he has reply by way of affidavit resisting, this, transfer application. Similarly, respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have put in reply resisting this transfer application. 7. It is submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to ask for transfer. Case is between C.B.I. on one hand and them on the other. Case is being prosecuted by C.B.I. There is no kinship between Vinod Kumar etc. allegedly the missing persons, M/s. Saini Motors and the partners of M/s. Saini Motors, members or relatives including Harbhajan Singh. So far as M/s. Saini Motors is concerned, their partners, relatives and members all are safe. It was further submitted that he i.e. number never appeared before the Special Judge, Ambala. allegedly the missing persons, M/s. Saini Motors and the partners of M/s. Saini Motors, members or relatives including Harbhajan Singh. So far as M/s. Saini Motors is concerned, their partners, relatives and members all are safe. It was further submitted that he i.e. number never appeared before the Special Judge, Ambala. He was granted exemption from appearance by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala due to grave and palpable security threat being faced by him. Several assassination attempts were made on him by terrorists not only in India but abroad as well. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala allowed him exemption from personal appearance keeping in view the grave and palpable security threat to him. That exemption was continued by Special Judge, Ambala when the case was committed for trial. It was submitted that he never appeared before the Special Judge, Ambala. If he never appeared before the Special Judge, Ambala, where was the occasion for him to have offered him a seat. Petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the grant of personal exemption to him when he is being prosecuted by C.B.I. Whether he should or should not have been granted personal exemption that was a matter resting between the Court, the accused and the prosecution (in this case C.B.I.). The C.B.I. did not oppose the grant of personal exemption to him keeping in view the grave and palpable security threat to him. If personal exemption granted to him is revoked, he would be vulnerable to terrorist attack while travelling to and fro the Court premises as also in the court premises itself terrorists can sabotage the vehicle he might be using while travelling to and fro the Court premises. Grant of personal exemption was eminently called for. Even otherwise, personal exemption was granted to him on the condition that he would be called upon to appear before the Court as and when his personal appearance was required. This order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala was continued by Special Judge, Ambala after the case was committed. He had undertaken that in case he was granted personal exemption he would have no objection to the case being heard in his absence and he would have no objection to the recording of evidence in his absence and in the presence of his counsel. He had undertaken that in case he was granted personal exemption he would have no objection to the case being heard in his absence and he would have no objection to the recording of evidence in his absence and in the presence of his counsel. Grant of personal exemption by the Court to him on the ground which cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be imaginary or non-existent should not have invoked any apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that no justice will be done in the case. It was submitted that this transfer application is not based on bona fides. It is based on mala fides. To secure transfer of the case, the petitioner alleged a blatant lie namely that he (Sumedh Singh Saini) was shown special courtesy by the Court and offered a seat when the fact of the matter is that he is under personal exemption. He never appeared before the Court. 8. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 opposed this application for transfer that they have nothing to do with M/s. Saini Motors or with the petitioner or his brother etc. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for C.B.I. 10. Shri B. B. Parsoon is Special Judge, C.B.I., Ambala who is presiding over the trial of this case. As per the petitioner-Shri B. B. Parsoon is showing undue courtesy to Shri Sumedh Singh Saini. He offers him seat and asks his counsel to stay back and meet him after the case is over. The fact of the matter is that Shri Sumedh Singh Saini is under personal exemption which was granted to him because of security reasons by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. While committing the case he allowed that personal exemption in his favour to continue. At the same time, he ordered that he would appear personally before the Court whenever his presence was felt by the Court to be necessary. The petitioner for securing the transfer of this case went to the extent of making an averment, which averment is factually incorrect. During the course of hearing of this transfer application, it was brought to my notice that arguments on charge are almost over and the Court is nearing pronouncement of orders. The petitioner for securing the transfer of this case went to the extent of making an averment, which averment is factually incorrect. During the course of hearing of this transfer application, it was brought to my notice that arguments on charge are almost over and the Court is nearing pronouncement of orders. The Court had to stay its hands because of stay of further proceedings by this Court vide order dated 23-4-2002. 11. Apprehension of the petitioner that he would not have a fair trial at the hands of Shri B. B. Parsoon, Special Judge, Ambala is imaginary and without any foundation. If the Court is courteous in its behaviour towards the accused, that does not mean the Court will not discharge its duty fairly. Exhibiting courtesy to everybody who is concerned before the Court, in the trial of a case is one thing, deciding to case impartially and firmly which is the hall mark of the character of a Judge, is altogether a different thing. Shri B. B. Parsoon, Special Judge, joined at Ambala in June, 2001. 12. In his comments, Shri B. B. Parsoon has denied what the petitioner is alleging on his part impinging upon fair trial. Why Shri Parsoon who is a judicial officer of more than 20 years standing, be not believed? Why should he have asked Shri Anupam Gupta, Advocate, representing Shri Sumed Singh Saini. Respondent No. 2 to stay back and meet him after the case is over? Shri B.B. Parsoon, is aware of the principle governing the conduct of persons manning judiciary that they are required to keep aloof from anyone who is concerned in cases before them. Whether they be advocates, litigants, witnesses etc. so that it becomes apparent to everyone that "justice is being done." Keeping aloof from everyone who is concerned before him is the basic attribute of a Judge, if he has to tell the people that he is just impartial and will deliver unalloyed justice to them. 13. For the reasons given above, this transfer application fails and is dismissed.