SATLSH JAGGI versus STATE OF CHHATTLSHGARH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 1070 · Decided: 22-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SATlSH JAGGI 
v. 
ST ATE OF CHHA TTlSHGARH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 22, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJITPASA YAT AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.147-Transfer of case-Permissibility-Governing factors-Transfer 
C of Criminal trial-Prayed on the ground that the present Sessions Judge, 
Raipur before whom trial was pending was brother of sitting MLA and the 
father of accused was known to him-Plea of appellant that he was under 
genuine apprehension that he will not get justice if the trial is conducted and 
concluded by the present Sessions Judge-High Court rejected the prayer-
D On appeal, held, Sessions Judge himself not indicated his disinclination to 
hear the matter-He would have acted in the true sense of a judicial officer-
However, to ensure that justice is not only done, but also seem to be done, 
it will be appropriate if the High Court transfers the case to some other 
Sessions Judge in Raipur itself-Administration of Justice. 
E 
Appellant had filed a transfer petition under s.407 Cr.P.C. before the 
High Court for seeking transfer of a criminal trial pending in the Court of 
Sessions Judge, Raipur on the ground that the father of accused was the 
previous Chief Minister of the State and close to the sitting MLA who was 
brother of the Sessions Judge before whom the trial was pending. According 
F to appellant, he was under a bona fide and genuine apprehension that he will 
not get justice if the trial is conducted and concluded by the present Sessions 
Judge. 
The High Court rejected the prayer of transfer holding that the grounds 
set forth by the appellant seeking transfer were not sufficient to direct 
G transfer. 
H 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that ultimately 
administration of justice rests on many principles a11d·one of the fundamental 
principles is that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be 
done. 
1070 
( 
SATISHJAGGlv. SlATEOFCHHATTISllGARH 
1071 
Respondent contended that if the allegation is accepted it would be A 
doubting the impartiality of the present Sessions Judge; there is no material 
to show that the Judge has any bias or any partisan attitude and the fortuitous 
circumstances that his brother is an MLA cannot be a factor to doubt the 
judicial discipline of the Sessions Judge. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The Sessions Judge himself has not indicated his 
disinclination to hear the matter. That is probably because he believes that 
B 
the mere fact that his brother is known to some political heavyweight cannot 
stand in his way of discharging judicial function impartially without fear and C 
favour. These are the hallmarks of judicial system. A judicial officer in 
whatever capacity he may be functioning has to act with the belief that he is 
not to be guided by any factor other than to ensure that he shall render a free 
and fair decision which according to his· conscience is the right one on the 
basis of materials placed before him. There can be no exceptions to this 
imperative, but at the same time there should not be any scope given to any D 
person to go away with the feeling that the Judge was biased, however 
unfounded the impression may be. !Para 10111077-E-GI 
Gurcharan Dass Chadha v. S1a1e of Rajas1ha11, AIR (1966) SC 1418; 
Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Anr. v. Miss Rani Jethmalani, AIR (1979) 
SC 468; Abdul Nazar Madani v. Sla/e of Tamil Nadu, AIR (2000) SC 2293; E 
GX Francis v. Banke Bihari Singh, AIR (1958) SC 309 and Pal Singh and 
Anr. v. Central Bureau of Jnvesligalion and Ors., 12005112 SCC 329, referred 
to. 
"Judges" by David Pannick, referred to. 
F 
2. The present Sessions Judge would have acted in the true sense of a 
judicial officer. But nevertheless to ensure that justice is not only done, but 
also seen to be done and in the peculiar facts of the case, it will be appropriate 
if the High Court transfers the case to some other Sessions Court in Raipur 
itself. The transfer shall not be construed as casting any aspersion on the 
Sessions Judge. !Para 11111076-F-G I 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 
2007. 
From the Judgm'ent/final Order dated 21.11.2006 of the High Court of 
Judicature, Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in T.P. (Crl.) No.5/2006. 
H 
1072 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Arun Jaitely, V.K. Munshi, Sidharth Luthra, Shri Singh and Ashok Mathur 
B 
for the Appellant. 
\ 
K.K. Venugopal, Vivek Tankha, Rahul Sharma, P.N. Puri, Atul Jim, 
Dhar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.