Court emphasizes that procedural changes in hearing arguments do not warrant case transfer without substantial evidence of bias.
In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed petitions seeking the transfer of a high-profile case involving the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Balbir Chand Tiwari and others. The petitioners had requested the transfer, alleging bias due to a change in the manner of hearing final arguments by the current Presiding Officer of the Trial Court.
The case, titled "Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sumedh Singh Saini & others," is at the stage of final arguments. Initially, the predecessor Presiding Officer directed the parties to address arguments focusing on the sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, after a change in the Presiding Officer, the court decided to hear arguments comprehensively, covering both the sanction and the merits of the case. This shift prompted the petitioners to fear bias, leading them to seek a transfer to another court.
Presided over by Mr. Manoj Jain, J., the High Court found the petitioners' apprehensions to be speculative and unfounded. The judgment highlighted that procedural changes in how arguments are heard do not inherently indicate bias or a predetermined outcome. It emphasized the discretion of the Trial Court in managing the proceedings and noted that inconsequential procedural changes should not be misconstrued as bias.
The judgment further referenced the precedent set in the case of Kanaklata v. State (NCT of Delhi), where a transfer was permitted due to strong prejudicial observations by the Trial Court. However, the High Court distinguished the current case, stating that no such prejudicial observations existed, and the circumstances were not comparable.
The court also noted that the transfer of a case could have a demoralizing impact on the presiding judge and should only be considered in exceptional situations. It concluded that the petitioners had misread the court's intentions and jumped to unwarranted conclusions.
With no substantial evidence of bias or illegality in the procedural changes, the court upheld the decision of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, to deny the transfer request. The petitions were thereby dismissed, allowing the trial to proceed under the current Presiding Officer.
Bottom Line:
Request for transfer of a case cannot be granted on unfounded and speculative apprehensions of bias, especially when the Trial Court is already in the midst of final arguments.
Statutory provision(s): Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Balbir Chand Tiwari v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2881707
