Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1662 (PNJ)

M. S. Walia v. Central Bureau of Investigation

2011-09-01

T.P.S.MANN

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. T.P.S. Mann, J.: (Oral). - The petitioner, who is facing trial for the offences under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has sought the transfer of the trial from the court of Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 2. At the stage of recording of the defence evidence, the petitioner moved the trial Judge for transfer of the case to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. In his application dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner alleged that Shri Bhupinder Singh Bindra, Senior Advocate of this Court had masterminded the criminal proceedings against him. Said Shri Bindra was close to Hon’ble Justice V.K. Jhanji. Both of them remained office bearers of Chandigarh Club as well as Bar Association of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Before shifting to Chandigarh, they had been practising at Ludhiana. As such Justice V.K. Jhanji has been taking active and personal interest in the case against the petitioner in order to oblige Shri Bindra. 3. Further, according to the petitioner, Ms. Ritu Tagore has assumed the charge of Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh and the proceedings against the petitioner are pending in her Court. Said Ms.Tagore is related to Justice V.K. Jhanji and, therefore, the interest of justice and fairness of the trial warranted transfer of the case to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. 4. The application filed by the petitioner was taken up by Ms. Tagore, Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh on 26.4.2011. However, the same was held to be not maintainable before the said Court and the petitioner was directed to move the necessary application before the appropriate forum. The observations made by Ms. Tagore while holding the application to be not maintainable and issuing directions to the petitioner to move the same before the appropriate forum, are part of the order dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P-7). 5. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that subsequent to the passing of order dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for the necessary relief by filing Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 240 of 2011 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.8.2011. Copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been appended as Annexure P-8. 6. Copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been appended as Annexure P-8. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court finds that the allegations of Justice V.K. Jhanji taking interest in the trial of the case on account of his close association with Shri Bindra are too far fetched. Merely because Justice V.K. Jhanji and Shri Bindra had been earlier practising at Ludhiana before shifting to Chandigarh or remained office bearers of the Chandigarh Club or Bar Association of Punjab and Haryana High Court does not establish that Justice V.K. Jhanji has been taking active interest in the criminal case pending against the petitioner. Justice V.K. Jhanji has retired in March, 2006 while Shri Bindra has passed away about a year back. 7. Moreover, from the order dated 19.8.2011 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that the similar prayer made by the petitioner there, as in the present petition, did not find favour with the said Court and for that reason learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner there, after arguing for some time, sought permission to withdraw the petition. The transfer petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No option/liberty was given to the petitioner to approach this Court for transfer of the trial of the case. 8. Resultantly, there is no merit in the petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. ----------0BSK0----------