Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3718 (ALL)

KAMLA JAIN v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-11-15

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2016
JUDGMENT : Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. Supplementary affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. This transfer application has been filed with the prayer to allow this application and transfer the S.T.No.293 of 2014 State v. Anurag Jain & others, u/s 498A, 304B, 316 Indian Procedure Code& Section 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Phase-II Noida District Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the court of Addl.Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.1 Gautam Budh Nagar to any other court of competent jurisdiction under District Judgeship of Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava,Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava counsel for the applicant, and Sri G.S.Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Alok Ranjan Mishra counsel for the opp.party no.2. 4. Though the application moved on behalf of the accused seeking the transfer of the trial has a long winded version giving the history of the case and also contains some very generalized, non specific insinuations against the officer but they on the very face of it do not appear to have much substance and can hardly be said to be grounds to seek the transfer of the case from one court to another. It further appears that just because of the grounds being vague and weightless they have also not been dwelt upon or pressed before this court by the counsel for the applicant. The trial has already entered the advanced stage and the statement of some accused has already been recorded. Written statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has also been submitted on behalf of accused. The sole ground which the applicant's counsel has chosen to press before this court in order to seek the transfer of the case is that when the accused wanted to submit his written statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the court made some observations which were to the effect that "any amount of evidence may not save the accused from punishment or conviction". It has been submitted that such kind of expression given by the court has given rise to an apprehension in the mind of applicant that justice may not be done with him and therefore, the case should be transferred to some other court. It has been submitted that such kind of expression given by the court has given rise to an apprehension in the mind of applicant that justice may not be done with him and therefore, the case should be transferred to some other court. Counsel has been fair enough to concede that he has nothing in possession to show that the judicial officer is dishonest or that his integrity is doubtful or that he has done any such thing in this matter which may indicate that he is not an above-board officer or that he is an officer who is likely to act unfairly against the record. The apprehension of the applicant solely springs from the uncalled for adverse expression of the court as has been described hereinbefore, which according to the counsel is tantamount to a bias of the judge and his predilection towards prosecution side and therefore, the contention is, that it shall be proper to transfer the case to any other court. 5. Heard learned AGA and perused the record. 6. The controversy in question is a patent reminder of the old maxim that the judges should prefer to hear rather than being heard and for a judge the best way to speak is to speak through his judgment. Had the trial judge heeded to these conventional words of pragmatic wisdom, he would have certainly avoided the controversy that has crept up in this matter as a result of just being verbose and for the reason of making some unmindful utterances which, though to this court, appear to be nothing more than a little indiscretion of the presiding officer with the tongue. But vocal judges are not to be dubbed or be mistaken as dishonest judges and it must be remembered that to be expressive is not tantamount to be injudicious. A judge may maintain complete reticence and yet may act injudiciously or even dishonestly in a given matter, just as a speaking judge may act judiciously and honestly, despite the contrary expressions which he may indulge in giving during the course of hearing. In fact, there is scarcely any legitimate nexus between being expressive and being dishonest or being vocal and being injudicious. The two are wholly unconnected entities. In fact, there is scarcely any legitimate nexus between being expressive and being dishonest or being vocal and being injudicious. The two are wholly unconnected entities. It is also not an unknown phenomenon that a judicial officer may make up his mind at one stage but soon thereafter in the light of the record and arguments would change his mind completely. The ostensibly dissenting or contrary expressions which sometimes the judicial officers tend to give in the courts may appear to reflect an adverse or sometimes even a hostile mind but they are often given only to solicit and invite a thorough rebuttal of the things which may go against that party. Some judges prefer to convey to the party what is against him or what can be read against him, simply because the judge does not want to keep the party in dark and thus invites rebuttal of the same. But that is by no means to say that if a proper rebuttal is given by the party the judge would still stick to his stand and shall not accept the rebuttal. The judicial officers thinking aloud in the court is not an unprecedented happening and it shall be too much to attribute any unfairness or prejudice to such judicial officer, if he does so. It has also been admitted before this court by the counsel that the defence evidence is yet to be completed and the arguments are yet to be heard, and therefore, in the considered opinion of this court it shall be wholly premature to anticipate what verdict would be ultimately pronounced by the trial court in this matter. 7. The unsubstantiated paranoia of an ultra-conscious litigant and his illegitimate apprehensions cannot constitute a legitimate ground to transfer the case from one court to another. This court while rejecting this application in the absence of any other insinuating material does express its implicit faith in the court below and expects that the trial judge shall arrive at a just decision in the case remaining completely unprejudiced by any preoccupied notions or views, if at all he has any in his mind regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused, and it is expected that he shall pronounce his final verdict with complete judicial independence and with non-partisan dispassionate judiciousness. The presiding officer shall do well to remember that the act of doing justice has a touch of sublimity infused in it and it is a kind of divine functioning of man to dispense equity. To get afflicted by prejudice may be a human infirmity but the capability of man to disabuse himself from all prejudices is the first virtue of a judge. 8. Application being sans merit stands dismissed.