1963 (5) TMI 62 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Transfer of criminal cases under S. 52 of the Prisons Act outside the State of Punjab.
2. Allegations of bias and lack of impartiality in the judiciary.
3. Apprehension of not receiving justice due to personal vendetta and political influence.
4. Consideration of the principle of justice being seen to be done.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a petition for the transfer of two criminal cases under S. 52 of the Prisons Act outside the State of Punjab. The petitioner, a member of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha, sought the transfer due to alleged bias and unfair treatment in the local judiciary. The cases were pending trial before a Magistrate in Amritsar, and the petitioner requested the transfer to ensure a fair trial away from the influence of local authorities.

2. The petitioner made serious allegations of bias, including being continuously kept in jail, demands of exorbitant bail amounts, and interference in his property matters by influential individuals. The State government's affidavit did not adequately address these allegations, leading the court to rely on the petitioner's version of events. The court emphasized the importance of justice being seen to be done and considered the petitioner's apprehension of not receiving a fair trial due to the alleged personal vendetta and political influence.

3. The judgment highlighted the principle that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done. The court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns regarding the lack of impartiality in the local judiciary and the potential influence of powerful individuals on the legal proceedings. In similar past cases, the court had transferred matters outside the State of Punjab to ensure fairness and impartiality in the administration of justice.

4. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition for the transfer of the two criminal cases to the Sharanpur District for trial by a Magistrate chosen by the District Magistrate of Saharanpur. The decision was based on the petitioner's reasonable apprehension of not receiving justice in the current jurisdiction, considering the serious allegations of bias and interference in the legal process. The judgment underscored the importance of upholding the integrity of the judicial system and ensuring a fair trial for all parties involved.