Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 306 (RAJ)

Chirag Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-12

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
Order : 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 270/2024 whereby, he dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a victim in FIR No. 84/2024 registered against the accused persons for offence under Section 302, 394, 354 read with 34 IPC. The investigating officer after thorough investigation submitted chargesheet for offence under Section 302, 394, 449, 397 read with 34 IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, from where it got transferred to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said case, a Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Shreeji Bhavsar was appointed to conduct the trial on behalf of State. Today, Mr. Shreeji Bhavsar is present in court and both the counsels argued that the conduct and behaviour of the Presiding Officer has been highly inappropriate and against the standard of propriety. It is submitted that on more than one occasions, the Presiding Officer insulted the counsel for victim shaking the confidence of getting fair and impartial trial. The Special Prosecutor submits that the Presiding Officer tried to even malign and tarnish his reputation by insulting him. The Special Public Prosecutor pointed out that despite seeking short adjournment on medical ground, the learned Special Judge without granting due opportunity, proceeded to framed charges and fixed the matter for evidence. Counsels pointed out that when the charges were framed against the accused, the accused were not even present but were online through Video conferencing and without their signatures, charges were read over to them. Both the counsels state that since the charge for offence under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has not been framed against the accused persons, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice, if the case is transferred from the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, to some other Sessions court. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner. 4. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner. 4. While it is clear that no rigid or inflexible rule can be established to determine whether the power to transfer a criminal case from one court to another court under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) should be exercised, a careful reading of the provisions of the aforementioned Sanhita, in conjunction with an analysis of this Court's precedents, indicates that an order for the transfer of a trial should not be issued routinely, nor solely on the basis of apprehensions raised by an interested party concerning the fair conduct of the trial. The exercise of this power must be undertaken with caution and only in exceptional circumstances where it is deemed essential to safeguard the credibility of the trial. 5. A Judge who presides over the trial, the Public Prosecutor who presents the case on behalf of the State and the lawyer vis-a- vis amicus curiae who represents the accused/victim must work together in harmony in the public interest of justice uninfluenced by the personality of the accused/victim or those managing the affairs of the State. They must ensure that their working does not lead to creation of conflict between justice and jurisprudence. They should always uphold the dignity of their high office with a full sense of responsibility and see that its value in no circumstances gets devalued. The Public interest demands that the trial should be conducted in a fair manner and the administration of justice would be fair and independent. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. Amarinder Singh vs. Prakash Singh Badal and Others in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.235/2008, has observed as under:- “13) Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice. The purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that the public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, the aggrieved party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406 Cr.P.C. However, the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary. Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and if it is biased, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking the confidence of the public in the system. The apprehension must appear to the Court to be a reasonable one." 7. Having considered the contention of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that public confidence in the judiciary is a cornerstone of democratic governance and the rule of law. The judiciary, as a vital organ of the state, must maintain an image of neutrality, fairness, and integrity. Any behavior by a judge that compromises these principles—whether through actions that suggest bias, prejudice, or misconduct—can significantly tarnish the reputation of the judiciary. In order to prevent erosion of public confidence in the efficacy of judicial process, the public confidence and respect has to be upheld. 8. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the allegations made by the victim as well as by the Special Public prosecutor is credible and supported by specific instances of improper behavior and the behavior in question impairs the fairness of the trial or the confidence in the judiciary, and no other remedial measures are possible, this Court deems it appropriate to transfer the case from the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, to some other Sessions court. The decision to transfer the case from the court of the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, to another Sessions court is made with a view to ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. Transferring the case helps maintain the integrity of the judicial process, upholds the reputation of the judiciary, and ensures that the rights of all parties involved are fairly adjudicated. 9. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The order dated 16.10.2024 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Criminal Misc. Application No. 270/2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Udaipur is directed to transfer the Sessions Case No. 78/2024 (State Vs. Vikas Ahlawat & Ors) from the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, to some other court. 10. Stay petition also stands disposed of.