Transferring a case from one court to another on mere “apprehension and presumption” of a litigant is not only an “abuse” of law but also casts a doubt on “integrity and competence” of a judge, the Delhi High Court has said.
“The transfer of a case from one court to another on mere presumptions and possible apprehensions is clearly an abuse of the process. Transfer of a case indirectly casts doubt on the competence and integrity of the judge from whom the case is sought to be transferred,” Justice Mukta Gupta said.
The court’s observations came in a verdict by which a plea of Delhi-based Amar Singh Yadav, seeking transfer of murder trial of his son from one court to another, was dismissed.
In a bid to buttress his case, Yadav levelled allegations including one that the judge belonged to the community of one of the accused and a fair trial was not being conducted.
“Transfer of a case cannot be granted for a mere apprehension of litigant. It is the duty of the court to ensure that every applicant get fair justice and while considering the case for transfer the yardstick to be applied is the interest of justice.
“Merely because a judge while examining the witnesses and proceeding with the trial participates in it and does not sit as a silent spectator, it cannot be said that he has overawed the witnesses,” Justice Gupta said.
Yadav, who himself has been declared a hostile witness in the murder trial of his son, had challenged the order of the sessions judge dismissing his plea to shift the trial.
“There was no reasonable apprehension warranting transfer of the case and the allegations as set out were vague as they did not disclose as to which of the witnesses was threatened and on which date,” the lower court had said.