Skip to content


Rajani Kanta Dutta Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in3Ind.Cas.88
AppellantRajani Kanta Dutta
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredAsimuddi v. Govinda Baidya
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 526 - transfer of criminal cases--reasonable apprehension in mind of accused that fair trial will not be had--sufficient ground--circumstances of rack case to be considered. - .....the accused that he will not have a fair trial is a sufficient ground for transfer, we at the same time hold that in applying that doctrine regard must be had to the circumstances of each case. the mere fact that in another case on other evidence the sessions judge may have come to a particular con-elusion is not in itself a sufficient ground for transfer and that has been decided by a division bench of this court in asimuddi v. govinda baidya 1 c.w.n. 426. on the facts of this case we hold that there should not be a transfer. bat we at the same time feel every confidence that the learned sessions judge in dealing with the case now under consideration will not allow his mind to be in any way influenced, by any evidence that was adduced before him in the previous case or by any opinion.....
Judgment:

1. Without in any way detracting from the doctrine which we accept as sound that a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused that he will not have a fair trial is a sufficient ground for transfer, we at the same time hold that in applying that doctrine regard must be had to the circumstances of each case. The mere fact that in another case on other evidence the Sessions Judge may have come to a particular con-elusion is not in itself a sufficient ground for transfer and that has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Asimuddi v. Govinda Baidya 1 C.W.N. 426. On the facts of this case we hold that there should not be a transfer. Bat we at the same time feel every confidence that the learned Sessions Judge in dealing with the case now under consideration will not allow his mind to be in any way influenced, by any evidence that was adduced before him in the previous case or by any opinion which he then formed on that evidence and that he will deal with the case without any kind of bias by reason of his decision in the other case. we, therefore, on the fuels of this case discharge the rule.


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