LexNARINDER SINGH ARORA versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 436 NARINDER SINGH ARORA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.2184 of 2011) DECEMBER 5, 2011 [H.L. DATTU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] Judgment - Requirement of a Judge to act fairly as a/so to act above suspicion of unfairness and bias - Test of "real C likelihood of bias"- Appellant lodged complaint whereafter charges were framed against the respondents u/ss. 498-A, 304-B rlw s.34 and s.302 of !PC by 'PR', Additional District & Sessions Judge - Thereafter, the case was listed before 'SND', Additional Sessions Judge for trial, however, the Judge D recused from hearing the matter for personal reasons - Accordingly, the case was withdnwn from the Court of 'SND' and transferred to the Court of 'SMC', Additional Sessions Judge - Eventually accused respondents were tried and acquitted vide judgment passed by 'MG', Additional Sessions E Judge - Appellant preferred revision petition before the High Court - The same was dismissed vide impugned final Judgment passed by Judge, 'SND' - Held: Apparently the fact of earlier recusa/ of the case at the trial by 'SND' himself, was not brought to his notice in the revision petition before the F High Court by either of the parties to the case - Therefore, 'SND' owing to inadvertence regarding his earlier recusa/, dismissed the revision petition by the impugned Judgment - The impugned Judgment, passed by 'SND' subsequent to his recusa/ at trial stage for personal reasons, is against the G principle of natural justice and fair trial - A person who tries a cause should be able to deal with the matter placed before him objectively, fairly and impartially - No one can act in a judicial capacity if his previous conduct gives ground for believing that he cannot act with an open mind or impartially H 436 · NARINDER SINGH ARORA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT 437 OF DELHI) AND ORS. • - A person, trying a cause, must not only act fairly but must A be able to act above suspicion of unfairness and bias - In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, the impugned Judgment of the High Court in Criminal Revision is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal of the revision petition filed by the appellant. B Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi AIR 1957 SC 425: 1957 SCR 575; A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262: 1970 (1) SCR 457; S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P. (1974) 3 SCC 459: 1974 (1) SCR 697; G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow (1976) 3 SCC 585: 1977 (1) SCR 64; C Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611: 1988 (1) SCR 512; Secy. to Govt., Transport Deptt. v. Munuswamy Mudaliar (1988) Supp. SCC 651 - relied on. R. v. Camborne JJ, exp Pearce (1955) 1 QB 41 and R. D v. Gough (1993) 2 All ER 724 (HL) - referred to. Case Law Reference: 1957 SCR 575 relied on Para 5 1970 (1) SCR 457 relied on Para 6 1974 (1) SCR 697 relied on Para 7 1977 (1) SCR 64 relied on Para 8 1988 (1) SCR 512 relied on Para 9 (1988) Supp. sec 651 relied on Para 10 (1955) 1 QB 41 referred to Para 11 (1993) 2 All ER 724 (HL)referred to Para 12 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2184 of 2011. E F G H 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A From the Judgment & Order dated 01.09.2010 of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 555 of 2003. Kamini Jaiswal for the Appellant. P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Sadhna Sandhu (for Anil Katiyar). B Dhuruv Tamta (for Binu Tamta) for the Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER c H.L. DATTU, J. Leave granted. 1. The present appeal, by way of special leave, is directed D against the Judgement and Order dated 01.09.2010 of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 555 of 2003 whereby the High Court has dismissed the revision petition preferred by the appellant against the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2003 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 104 of 2001. E 2. Since we intend to remand the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal, it is not necessary to go into the factual matrix. Suffice to state that the appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents dated 24.11.1988 which was F registered as FIR No. 393 of 1988 at P.S.- Srinivaspuri, New Delhi. Subsequently, the charges were framed against the respondents under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section- 34 and Section 302 of the IPC by Shri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.