LexCAPT. AMARINDER SINGH versus PRAKASH SINGH BADAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 194 r A CAPT. AMARINDER SINGH ,_ v. ·- PRAKASH SINGH BADAL & ORS. (Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 235 of 2008) B MAY 14, 2009 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., P. SATHASIVAM AND J.M. > PANCHAL, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.406, 407 - c Transfer petition - Maintainability of - Held: Maintainable when there is reasonable apprehension on the part of party to a case that justice would not be done - Mere allegations that there is apprehension· that justice would not be done would not suffice - Assurance of fair trial is the first imperative ' D of the dispensation of justice - When it is shown that public -\Ji'.' confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, th_e· aggrieved party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under s.407 and anywhere in the country under s.406 :- Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 E of the Constitution - On facts, accused 11·1ere Chief Minister . and his relatives and friends - Information furnished showed that except one or two, others were businessmen, agriculturists, ). employed as Special Inspector in U. T. Chandigarh, and one , as Hindi teacher - In that event, if transfer is ordered outside F the State of Punjab, it would be difficult for the other accused to attend the Court proceedings on several occasions - Same hurdle would be for other witnesses both on the prosecution as well as defence - Transfer petitions dismissed - Administration of justice - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article G 21. - ··- The first accused was the Chief Minister of the State ~ of Punjab during the period 1997-2002. The others accused were his family members and his close H 194 CAPT. AMARINDER SINGH v. PRAKASH SINGH 195 BADAL & ORS. ' .,. associates. An FIR was filed against them for alleged acts A of corruption committed during the tenure of first accused for collecting black money, owning/possessing Nammi and Benami movable and immovable properties in India and abroad. Summons were issued by the Special Judge, Ropar. The accused persons filed B application before the Special Judge, Ropar raising ·• question relating to the competence and jurisdiction of Special Court, which was dismissed. They filed writ petition which was also rejected. Aggrieved accused filed SLP before this Court, which was also dismissed. c As the outcome of the dismissal of SLP, the trial before the Special Court which was suspended all this while was to proceed. Election took place in 2007 and the first accused again assumed power as Chief Minister of D "' Punjab. The transfer petitions were filed before this Court on the ground that trial became a sham and a farce designed to meet the ends of the accused who were in the complete control of every aspect of it; the prosecution E witnesses were becoming hostile; and the investigating officer virtually resiled from every aspect of investigation. ' ' Dismissing the transfer petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1. A criminal prosecution, if otherwise, F justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of ma/a tides or political mandate of the informant or the complainant. However, if justifiable and reasonable apprehension of miscarriage of justice and likelihood of bias is established, G ,. undoubtedly, the proceeding has to be transferred elsewhere by exercise of power under Section 406 Cr.P .C. For a transfer of a criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice would not be done. It is one of the H 196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. A principles of administration of justice that justice should . not only be done but it shou1d be seen to be done. On the other hand, mere allegations that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice. The court has further to see whether B apprehension alleged is reasonable or not. The apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the court to be a reasonable apprehension. [Para 12] [214-G-H; 215-A~C] Prakash Singh Badal and Ors v. State of Punjab and Ors. C (2007) 1 SCC 1; K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 767; Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tami/Nadu and Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 204; Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (//) T.N. v. State of T.N. & Ors.(2005) D 8 sec 771, relied on. 1.2. Assurance of a fair trial is the fir
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.