Cr.Misc. M 34426 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 34426 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:14.12.2010 Kamal Singh Petitioner vs. State of Haryana etc Respondent Present: Mr. RS Rai, Sr.Advocate with Ms. Meenakshi Dogra, Advocate. Ms. Baljit Mann, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner is facing trial for offence u/s 498-A/304B IPC in the Sessions Division, Gurgaon. As the trial was at the argument stage and written arguments had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide order dated 12.10.2010, for personal reasons, after getting instructions from the Administrative Judge on telephone,transferred the case to the court of Sh. Subhash Goel, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. The petitioner filed an application before the Sessions Judge, Gurgaon for transfer of the case from the court of Sh. Shubash Goel, Additional Sessions Judge (II) Gurgaon to some other court informing the Sessions Judge that the petitioner had been supplying milk at the house of the Presiding Officer. The petitioner has mentioned in his application that record had been maintained regarding the purchase of milk by the Presiding Officer and that one person,namely, Sanjay Kumar used to make entries with his signatures in the daily register record maintained by the accused- petitioner. Photo copy of the daily Cr.Misc. M 34426 of 2010 (O&M) 2 register and receipt book, in which the account of the Presiding Officer had been maintained, were attached with the application for transfer. The said application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge observing that it is not open to the petitioner- accused to claim that he had been supplying milk to the Presiding Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon dated 18.11.2010, the petitioner has approached this court for transfer of the trial to some other Judge. The petition for transfer has been opposed by the complainant- party. Learned counsel for the complainant Mrs. Baljeet Mann, Advocate has vehemently urged that the transfer of the case on the mere asking of the apprehensive litigant, would tantamount to scandalizing the courts, as such the application for transfer should be dismissed. She has made a reference to the judgment in Madan Lal vs CBI/ACU-III New Delhi 2004 Cr.L.J. 3707,wherein it has been observed that a litigant cannot choose a Bench of his choice by filing an application for transfer. She has also placed reliance on Gurcharan Singh vs Gurcharan Singh and ors 1990(2) Cr.L.J. 385, where the High Court had refused to transfer the case when on the allegation of a party, the Sessions Judge had ordered transfer of the case to some other court for the reason that the petitioner was putting pressure on him. Reliance has also been placed on Capt. Amarinder Singh vs Prakash Singh Badal & Ors 2009(20 RCR (Crl.) 943, where the application for transfer of the trial from out of the State of Punjab by ex-Chief Minister was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court observing that the Presiding Officer of a court is conscious of his powers and responsibility to conduct a fair trial. After going through the various judgments, cited by counsel for Cr.Misc. M 34426 of 2010 (O&M) 3 the complainant, I am of the opinion that there is no dispute regarding proposition of law that a case can be transferred when there is apparent bias or where there is a reasonable apprehension to a litigant for not getting fair justice. The convenience of the parties is also considered to be one of the circumstances to transfer the case from one place to another but no hard and fast rule of law can be laid down and the law regarding the transfer of cases cannot be considered by adopting any straight jacket formula. The circumstances of each case are to be seen. The objective of transfer in each case is to see that justice is not only done but it should appear to have been done but where one of the litigant parties apprehending bias raises an apprehension that chances of getting fair trial do not exist, transfer of case can be ordered by adopting the principles of propriety. In the present case, it is apparent that the petitioner has some connection with the Presiding Officer, which the Presiding Officer might not be knowing i.e. by supplying milk at the house of the Presiding Officer, to whom the case has been transferred. The said relationship might be a pleasant relationship or it might be an unpleasant relationship depending upon the quality of material supplied by the petitioner. Without expression of any opinion regarding the nature of relationship between the petitioner and the Presiding Officer, I am of the opinion that propriety demands that the matter should not have been taken up by the Presiding Officer Mr. Subhash Goel, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. Transfer of the case from the court of the said Judicial Officer will not, in any manner, tantamount to scandalizing the court but it would be in the interest of justice in case the matter is decided by some other judicial officer. The matter is disposed of with a direction to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon to withdraw the case in question from the court of Sh. Subhash Goel, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon and Cr.Misc. M 34426 of 2010 (O&M) 4 entrust the same to any other court of competent jurisdiction in the Sessions Division of Gurgaon by taking into consideration the quantum of work and availability of time besides considering the other circumstances. Copy of the order be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. December 14 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE