Skip to content


Govind Sharan Aggarwal Vs. Pt. Hardeo Sharma Trivedi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 1497 of 1981
Judge
Reported in(1983)2SCC268
AppellantGovind Sharan Aggarwal
RespondentPt. Hardeo Sharma Trivedi
DispositionAppeal Allowed
Excerpt:
- [a. varadarajan,; a.n.sen and; s. murtaza fazal ali, jj.] -- criminal procedure code, 1973 — section 406 — appellant's application for transfer of criminal case, pending in the court of district judge, on ground of apprehension of unfair trial by that judge — held, the apprehension not unfounded where the same judge granted huge costs as lawyer's fee in a civil suit involving the appellant as a party -- one of the factors that has weighed with us was that in a civil suit this very judge had granted a huge cost of rs 5000 as lawyer's fee and a sum of rs 1500 as lawyer's fee in an interlocutory matter. for this reason, we allow this appeal and direct that the case be transferred to the court of district and sessions judge, simla......judge. he may or may not be justified in this, but if the appellant has an apprehension on this score, it cannot be said that his apprehension is not well-founded.3. for this reason, we allow this appeal and direct that the case be transferred to the court of district and sessions judge, simla. parties are directed to appear before him on june 15, 1981 and the appellant undertakes to appear before the simla court on that day. in this view of the matter, the order of the high court regarding breach of undertaking and issue of warrants, etc., become otiose.
Judgment:

A. Varadarajan,; A.N.Sen and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Having regard to the very peculiar and special circumstances of this case, without casting any reflection on the District Judge, we think that the apprehension of the appellant that he will not get fair trial at the hands of Mr Kainthla cannot be said to be unreasonable. One of the factors that has weighed with us was that in a civil suit this very Judge had granted a huge cost of Rs 5000 as lawyer's fee and a sum of Rs 1500 as lawyer's fee in an interlocutory matter. This is a rather very extraordinary course that seems to have been adopted by the learned Judge. He may or may not be justified in this, but if the appellant has an apprehension on this score, it cannot be said that his apprehension is not well-founded.

3. For this reason, we allow this appeal and direct that the case be transferred to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Simla. Parties are directed to appear before him on June 15, 1981 and the appellant undertakes to appear before the Simla court on that day. In this view of the matter, the order of the High Court regarding breach of undertaking and issue of warrants, etc., become otiose.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //