LexKANAKLATA versus STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B . (2015] 2 S.C.R. 559 KANAKLATA v. STAT!= OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.222 of 2015) FEBRUARY 04, 2015 [T. S. THAKUR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND C R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Transfer petition: Complaint u/ss.3(1)(x), (xi}, (xv) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act}, 1989 and ss.3231354, /PC - Sessions Judge, o Rohini discharged the accused persons for offence under the Special Act of 1989 - High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant with a direction to trial court to pass fresh order being uninfluenced by any observation made in . earlier order- Complainant filed transfer petition E on the ground that it apprehended biased approach of the trial court in view of its findings recorded in the order of discharge passed earlier - Session court dismissed the petition - Complainant filed transfer petition before the High Court which was also dismissed- On appeal, Held: Majority F view: Jn the ordinary course, if an order passed by the Court is set aside the observations and findings recorded therein also get obliterated for all intents and purposes - So also if the High Court makes the position clear that any such G observation shall not influence the Court concerned while making a fresh order the same should ordinarily put the matter beyond the pale of any controversy- However, there may still be situations where the nature of the observations made by the court concerned create a reasonable H 559 KANAKLATA v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS. 560 apprehension in the mind of the litigant that the Court has A so committed itself to a given approach or thought process that it may not be possible for it to retrace its steps to take a fair and non-partisan view in the matter- In the instant case, despite the safeguards provided by the High Court's observations, the' apprehension of the complainant B continued to subsist- Such apprehension cannot be said to be wholly misconceived nor can it be dubbed as forum shopping in disguise - The earlier order passed by trial Court was so strongly worded that it could in all likelihood give rise C to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the complainant which cannot be lightly brushed aside - On that test, High Court ought to have directed a transfer-In as much as itdid not do so, it is directed to transfer the case to another Court - Minority opinion: Any casual observations made by a o presiding officer of trial court would not be a sufficient ground for transfer for the reason that trial courts work in a charged atmosphere and they do not have the benefit of a detached atmosphere of the higher courts so as to think coolly and decide patiently-Appellant did not make out any sufficient E ground for transfer. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: (Majority opinion) (Per T.S. Thakur and F Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ) The trial court had while discharging the accused persons under the Special Act made certain observations aboutthe alleged misuse of the provisions G of the said Act by unscrupulous elements and also certain suggestions for remedying that situation. The trial court had come to the conclusion that there is no real basis for it to frame any charge against the accused persons under the said Act. But it is equally true that H . • 561 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A while setting aside that order and directing a fresh order on the question of charge, the High Court has clearly mentioned that the trial Court shall remain uninfluenced by the observation made in its earlier order. That observation is, in the opinion of the High Court, a 8 sufficient safeguard against any possible prejudice to the complainant-appellant making transfer of the case from the Court at Rohini to any other Court unnecessary. Now in the ordinary course if an ord.er passed by the C Court is set aside the observations and findings recorded therein also get obliterated for all intents and purposes. So also if the High Court makes the position clear that any such observation shall not influence the Court concerned while making a fresh order the same o should ordinarily put the matter beyond the pale of any controversy. Having said that, there may still be situations where the nature of the observations made by the court concerned create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that the Court E has so committed itself to a given approach or thought
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.