R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 26 · Decided: 30-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 
v. 
ST A TE OF KERALA 
AUGUST 30, 2000 
[M.B. SHAH AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Transfer Petition-Corruption charges-Transfer Petition for transfer 
of appeals from one High Court to another High Court-Apprehension of 
C unfair trial on ground that High Court Judge hearing the appeals acted as 
Prosecutor against appellant in a different case earlier-Adverse publicity 
by Press against the appellant in the State-Held, on facts, there is no 
justifiable apprehension for unfair trial-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-
Section 5. 
D 
Practice & Procedure: 
Advocate filing application for withdrawing from the case-Real 
purpose is to get the matter adjourned-Such practice requires to be strongly 
discouraged 
E 
Petitioner as Minister of Electricity in Government of Kerala utilised 
his position in supplying electricity to a private company in the State of 
Karnataka, which enabled the company to make a pecuniary advantage of Rs. 
19,58,630. Inquiry Commission and Special Judge found the petitioner guilty 
under Section S of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him 
to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 10,000. In 
F appeal, Single Judge of the Kerala High Court referred the matter to a 
Division Bench as the matter involved question of law and facts of public 
importance. The appeals came up for hearing before a Division Bench. The 
petitioner made a representation before the Chief Justice of the High Court 
that the appeals be transferred to another Bench of the High Court. The 
petitioner, meanwhile, filed a transfer petition before this Court 
G 
The petitioner urged for transfer of appeals from the High Court of 
Kerala to High Court of Karnataka on the ground of alleged adverse publicity 
in the Press in the respondent-State against the petitioner and contended that 
a fair trial is not possible; that one of the judge acted as a prosecutor before 
H another Commission of Inquiry appointed against him to inquire into 
26 
-
'· ' 
R.B. PILLAI v. ST ATE OF KERALA 
27 
malpractices some 15 years back; that the Judge would have prejudice against A 
him on that ground; that the Chief Justice of Kera la High Court has not passed 
any order on the representation made; and that when adjournment of hearing 
of the appeal was sought in the last hearing, the High Court declined to grant 
the same and when the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner withdrew 
his appearance and refused to argue the matter, the Court issued bailable B 
warrant to the petitioner to remain present on the next date of hearing; and 
that all the aforesaid grounds are to be considered conjointly by the Supreme 
Court before arriving at a decision. 
Respondent-State contended that the litigants cannot select the Bench 
for the trial and malign the judicial administration thereby; that the petitioner C 
has not been convicted for the offences arising out of the earlier Inquiry 
Commission report; and that it cannot be stated that the Judge, who appeared 
as prosecutor before the earlier Commission would not do justice in this case. 
Dismissing the Transfer Petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is complete separation of Judiciary from the Executive 
and the Judges are not influenced in any manner either by the propaganda or 
adverse publicity. Cases are decided on the basis of the evidence available on 
record and the law applicable. Granting such application and transferring the 
appeal from High Court of Kerala to High Court of Karnataka would result 
D 
in casting unjustified aspersion on the Court having jurisdiction to decide E 
the appeal on the assumption that its judicial verdict is consciously or sub-
consciously affected by the popular frenzy, official wrath or adverse publicity, 
which is not the position qua the judicial administration in this country. 
(31-F-G) 
1.2. A more allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not F 
be done in a given case is not sufficient. Before transferring the case, the 
Court has to find out whether the apprehension appears to be reasonable. To 
judge the reasonableness of the apprehension, the state of the mind of the 
person who entertains the apprehension is relevant but that is not all. The 
apprehension must appear to the Court to be reasonable, genuine and G 
justifiable. In the present day scenario, if these types of applications are 
entertained, the entire judicial atmosphere would be polluted with such 
frivolous petit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.