Advocates Must Practice Seven Lamps Of Advocacy, Making False Allegations Against Presiding Officer Cannot Be Countenanced For Transfer Of Cases U/s. 407 CrPC- Karnataka HC
A Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T has observed that making false allegations against the Presiding Officer cannot be countenanced for transfer of a case under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. The Court also stressed that advocates must practice the seven lamps of advocacy.
In that context, it was said that, "the counsel for accused is also an Officer of the Court and he is duty bound to assist the Court of law and the seven lamps of advocacy is equally applicable to him".
It was further observed that, "It shows that the matter was pending for final arguments for more than a year, but, the counsel for accused himself was not ready to submit his arguments, on the contrary, he recalled the witnesses on five occasions and now instead of submitting his arguments, making false allegations against the Presiding Officer."
Counsel Nandkishore B appeared for the petitioners, while HCGP Anita M Reddy appeared for the respondent.
In this case, the accused, facing charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC, filed a petition under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. seeking the transfer of their case from the III Additional District and Sessions Judge in Kalaburagi to another Sessions Court within the jurisdiction of the Principal District and Sessions Judge in Kalaburagi.
The accused alleged that the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court had exhibited bias in favor of the prosecution and had engaged in confrontations with their defense counsel, eroding their faith in the court's impartiality. They claimed that the Presiding Officer had refused to record pertinent questions and admissions during witness cross-examination, leading to strained exchanges between the counsel and the court.
Moreover, the accused cited an incident where the Presiding Officer declined their adjournment request and insisted on day-to-day arguments, contributing to their perception that a fair trial was unlikely.
The prosecution countered these allegations, asserting that they were baseless and insignificant. They argued that the petitioners had falsely accused the Presiding Officer, who had provided ample opportunities to the defense counsel.
The High Court observed that while the assurance of fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice, the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial trial must be reasonable and not imaginary.
In light of the same, the Court observed that in the present case, the entire order sheet clearly depicted that, the Trial Court accorded opportunities in all fairness.
Therefore, the Court held that "I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out a case that, they have reasonable apprehension of not availing justice from the Presiding Officer. I have already pointed out that mere allegation of apprehension that justice will not be done, in a given case alone does not suffice. I am satisfied that the Presiding Officer is conscious of his power and how to conduct fair trial in accordance with law."
Subsequently, the petition was disposed of.
Cause Title: Santosh & Ors. v. The State
Click here to read/download the Judgment
