Mamnoon And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2014 Latest Caselaw 6095 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 426 of 2014
 

 
Applicant :- Mamnoon And 7 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- M.J. Akhtar,V.M. Zaidi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. This is an application filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of Sessions Trial No. 1162 of 2009 (Case Crime No. 264 of 2004) pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Muzaffar Nagar to the Court of equal jurisdiction of any other adjacent District. Counsel for applicants contended that earlier Trial reached to the stage of hearing in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9 when District Judge transferred it to Court No. 7 whereagainst applicants came to this Court in Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 261 of 2013 and this Court disposed of the same vide judgment dated 9.5.2014 directing that the Trial shall continue in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 9. However, it is stated in para 18 of the affidavit that in the meantime Presiding Officer of Court No. 9 stood changed and thereafter Trial was transferred from Court No. 9 to Court No. 7 by District Judge by order dated 21.7.2014. Now this application has been filed alleging that District Administration, in order to get a particular result in the Trial, is pressurizing the Presiding Officer and therefore the said Trial has been transferred. Para 19 and 20 of the affidavit in support of this Transfer Application read as under:

"19. That the applicants respectfully submits that one of the accused in the aforesaid case has been the local M.P. of Bahujan Samaj Party but due to the change of political scenario in the State, the one Chitranjan Swaroop who happens to be the State Minister and one Sri Sanjeev Baliyan, Minister in Central Government, are behind the said Ex-M.P., consequently, they wants that the said M.P. be convicted by the Court below, so he will be disqualified for contesting the election in future.

20. That the district administration is also against the said M.P. and they also wants that the aforesaid session trial should be ended in conviction consequently they have also pressurized the Presiding Officer as well as they have build up the pressure upon the Presiding Officer to achieve their wish."

2. From a bare perusal of above, it is clear that the allegations are very vague in nature. Learned counsel for applicants could not tell at all as to how and in what manner the abovenamed politicians or the District Administration can build up pressure over the Presiding Officer and how the District Administration can get the Trial decided in a particular way. The allegations levelled are totally unsubstantiated.

3. The allegations have been made in para 18 and 19 as if the Judicial Officers are amenable to the approach of District Administration or the political persons, may be Member of Parliament. This assumption without substantiating the same with relevant material is nothing but per se cause a serious aspersion on the independence and objective of Indian judiciary and, in particular, the Members of judicial service. This Court is under constitutional obligation to protect subordinate Judiciary from such unfounded baseless aspersions otherwise it may shake confidence of public in the independent Judiciary. No one can be permitted to make reckless allegations against the members of judicial service so as to obtain a particular result and this Court must take serious view in such matters. It is also admitted by learned counsel for applicants that the District Judge as also the Presiding Officer of the Court in which the case has been transferred, both are now different Officers and not the earlier one when the earlier transfer order was passed which stood nullified by this Court.

4. Apparently, this is an application filed for maligning the reputation of a senior Judicial officer without substantiating allegations at all. Therefore, it is not only mischievous, but is likely to set a bad precedent.

5. In the matters where reckless false allegations are attempted to be made to seek some favourable order, either in a transfer application, or otherwise, the approach of Court must be strict and cautious to find out whether the allegations are bona fide, and, if treated to be true on their face, in the entirety of circumstances, can be believed to be correct, by any person of ordinary prudence in those circumstances. If the allegations are apparently false, strict approach is the call of the day so as to maintain not only discipline in the courts of law but also to protect judicial officers and maintain their self esteem, confidence and above all the majesty of institution of justice.

6. Taking a serious view in such matters, in Writ Petition No. 40414 of 2011, Sanjay Kumar Vs. The Collector Bijnor and others, decided on 21.07.2011 this Court in paras 4 and 5 of judgment said as under:

"4. In my view no interference is called for. This is a petition filed for maligning the reputation of Presiding Officer of the Court without substantiating any allegation at all and, therefore, not only mischievous but is likely to set a bad precedent. Merely because one of the party to case is an Advocate, that would not mean that he can have such an influence or relation with judicial officer that other party would not get justice. It is a normal practice that outside the Court, Presiding Officers and Advocates, who are also officers of the Court, constitute single lot and many a times in functions meet each other. Similarly, if an Advocate comes to meet the Presiding Officer or a Judge in his Chamber or at residence, normal curtsey some time extended by a Judge by itself cannot be said to reflect upon the judicial integrity of a Judge.

5. In my view, this writ petition is gross abuse of process of law and is an attempt to malign the reputation of a Presiding Officer without substantiating the allegations hence such kinds of writ petition should be dealt with seriously. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs."

7. The justice delivery system knows no caste, religion, creed, colour etc. It is a system following principle of black and white, i.e., truth and false. Whatever is unfair, that is identified and given its due treatment and whatever is good is retained. Whoever suffers injustice is attempted to be given justice and that is called dispensation of justice. The prevailing system of dispensation of justice in Country, presently, has different tiers. At the ground level, the Courts are commonly known as "Subordinate Judiciary" and they form basis of administration of justice. Sometimes it is said that subordinate judiciary forms very backbone of administration of justice. Though there are various other kinds of adjudicatory forums, like, Nyaya Panchayats, Village Courts and then various kinds of Tribunals etc. but firstly they are not considered to be the regular Courts for adjudication of disputes, and, secondly the kind and degree of faith, people have, in regular established Courts, is yet to be developed in other forums. In common parlance, the regular Courts, known for appropriate adjudication of disputes basically constitute subordinate judiciary, namely, the District Court; the High Courts and the Apex Court.

8. The hierarchy gives appellate and supervisory powers in various ways. The administrative control of subordinate judiciary has been conferred upon High Court, which is the highest Court at provincial level and is under constitutional obligation to see effective functioning of subordinate Courts by virtue of power conferred by Article 235 read with 227 of the Constitution. No such similar power like Article 235, in respect to High Court is exercisable by Apex Court, though it is the highest Court of land. Its judgments are binding on all. Every order and judgment of any Court or Tribunal etc., in the Country, is subject to judicial review by Apex Court. This is the power on judicial side.

9. In Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, In Re:, (1998) 7 SCC 248, the Court said that superior Courts, i.e. High Court as also the Apex Court is bound to protect the Judges of subordinate Courts from being subjected to scurrilous and indecent attacks, which scandalise or have the tendency to scandalise, or lower or have the tendency to lower the authority of any court as also all such actions which interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. No affront to the majesty of law can be permitted. The fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants. The protection is necessary for the courts to enable them to discharge their judicial functions without fear.

10. If there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize a judicial Officer of subordinate Court, it is bound to shake confidence of the litigating public in the system and has to be tackled strictly. The damage is caused not only to the reputation of the concerned Judge, but, also to the fair name of judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language, and, at times, blatant condemnatory attacks are often designedly employed with a view to tame a Judge into submission to secure a desired order. The foundation of our system is based on the independence and impartiality of the men having responsibility to impart justice i.e. Judicial Officers. If their confidence, impartiality and reputation is shaken, it is bound to affect the very independence of judiciary. Any person, if allowed to make disparaging and derogatory remarks against a Judicial Officer, with impunity, is bound to result in breaking down the majesty of justice.

11. This Court made following observations in Writ Petition No. 57760 of 2012, Smt. Munni Devi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 03.12.2012:

"10. Be that as it may, so far as the present case is concerned, suffice is to mention that the Constitution makers have imposed constitutional obligation upon the High Court to exercise control over subordinate judiciary. This control is both ways. No aberration shall be allowed to enter the Subordinate Judiciary so that its purity is maintained. Simultaneously Subordinate Judiciary can not be allowed to be attacked or threatened to work under outside pressure of anyone, whether individual or a group, so as to form a threat to objective and independent functioning of Subordinate Judiciary."

12. In my view, this application amounts to gross abuse of process of law and needs be dealt with strictly and seriously.

13. However, before parting, there is one more aspect involved in this matter. Evidently the accused includes persons belong to political parties and one of them is/was a Member of Parliament also. Apex Court has recently observed that in such matters, Trial must be concluded expeditiously. Therefore, here is also a case where Trial must be concluded expeditiously without any unnecessary adjournment. The Trial Court shall take care of this aspect and endeavour to conclude the Trial at the earliest after ensuring due opportunity to all concerned parties, including the accused persons, for their defence.

14. Subject to above directions, this application deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

15. It is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified to Rs. 20,000/-.

Dt. 08.09.2014

PS