get a fair and impartial trial is on the basis of the incident which
occurred on 30.07.2015 referred to above. According to the petitioner,
he overheard the conversation between the complainant and his son
while he was standing in the parking area that from the next date
onwards, the trial would commence and all the accused would be
convicted. After the said conversation was overheard by the petitioner
something transpired in the Court wherein in the absence of the
advocate on that day appearing for the petitioner, all of a sudden, the
date was fixed i.e. 05.08.2015. This incident led the petitioner to believe
that something is wrong and he would not get justice. It appears that
one of the grounds urged in the application filed by the petitioner under
Section 408 is quite curious. It says that the Presiding Officer is a
convicting Judge and he spares none. As such, the two grounds are quite
conflicting. It gives an impression that the accused is afraid of the
Presiding Officer being a convicting Judge and on the other hand,
indirectly he is trying to convey that the complainant is quite confident
that he would be able to secure conviction at any cost. The petitioner
definitely is in dilemma. Whether to term his apprehension as reasonable
and not the result of the reaction of a hypersensitive mind is the
question.
It is not in dispute that the Presiding Officer concerned has not
examined a single witness till this date. The witnesses examined so far
were all examined by the Predecessor in Office. The Presiding Officer
himself has also not indicated his disinclination to hear the matter. At
the same time, he has offered quite a stiff resistance to the plea of
transfer as the same is revealed from his remarks forwarded to the
Principal Sessions Judge. I am sure that the present Additional Sessions
Judge would have acted in a true sense of a Judicial Officer. But
nevertheless, to ensure that justice is not only done, but also seems to be
done and in the peculiar facts of the case, I feel that it will be
appropriate if the Principal Sessions Judge transfers the case to any
other Additional Sessions Judge in the same Sessions Division. I make it
abundantly clear that the transfer shall not be construed as casting any
aspersions on the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4884 of 2015
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17138 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4884 of 2015
CHANDRKANTBHAI BHAICHANDBHAI SHARMA
V
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 08/10/2015
