LI Network
Published on: 23 September 2023 at 18:42 IST
The Karnataka High Court, under the jurisdiction of Justice Venkatesh Naik T, has issued a decision concerning the transfer of criminal cases between courts within the state.
The Court’s verdict emphasized that such transfers cannot be granted solely on the basis of mere allegations made by the accused regarding apprehensions of injustice.
The Court clarified that a “reasonable apprehension” of injustice must exist for such a transfer to be considered.
The Court observed, “Upon examining Section 407 of the Cr.P.C., it is evident that ensuring a fair trial is the foremost priority in the administration of justice. The purpose of criminal trials is to dispense fair and impartial justice, free from external influences.”
The case in question revolved around an accused facing charges under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). During the trial, disputes and tensions arose between the defense counsel and the Presiding Officer, prompting the accused to allege bias in favor of the prosecution.
The accused argued that their requests for adjournments and witness recalls were treated unfairly compared to those of the prosecution. Consequently, they sought a transfer of their trial from the III Additional District and Sessions Judge in Kalaburagi to another Sessions Court within the jurisdiction of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi.
However, the government pleader contended that these allegations were unfounded and aimed at prolonging the trial. After a meticulous review of the trial court records and the conduct of the defense counsel, Justice Venkatesh Naik T concluded that the accused had not substantiated a “reasonable apprehension of bias or unfairness” in the trial.
The Court reiterated the fundamental principle that justice must not only be served but also perceived as such. It emphasized that mere allegations of potential injustice are insufficient grounds for transferring a case, especially when the trial has already experienced significant delays.
Justice Venkatesh Naik T also underscored the duties of defense counsel, noting that they are obligated to assist the court of law. In this particular case, the defense counsel failed to present their final arguments within the stipulated timeframe, instead repeatedly recalling witnesses and making baseless allegations against the Presiding Officer.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the transfer petition and instructed the trial court to provide the defense counsel with one more opportunity to present their oral or written arguments. Once these arguments are submitted, the trial court is directed to proceed with the judgment.