Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

A Delhi Court on Wednesday refused Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Kumar Jain's plea to transfer two cases of alleged disproportionate assets against him to another judge.

Various proceedings relating to the case are pending before Special Judge Vikas Dhull.

Principal District & Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna of the Rouse Avenue Court said that strong observations by a judge could not be the basis to conclude that the trial was not being conducted in a fair and impartial manner.

“A Judge is supposed to conduct the proceedings without fear and favour. During the course of proceedings, some orders may favour prosecution and some may favour defence but such orders cannot be made the basis of attributing bias to the Judge concerned,” court said.

The two cases against the AAP leader are related to allegedly acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income between February 14, 2015, when he took oath as a Minister in the Government of NCT of Delhi, and May 31, 2017. While, the CBI is probing the alleged corruption, the ED is investigating the money laundering aspect.

On examination of the contents of the order dated November 17, 2022, and 'the requirement of law', the court opined that the apprehension of bias as expressed by the applicant has no merit or substance.

“I find that Ld. Judge has been dealing with the matter properly by following the rules of natural justice. I find nothing against the neutrality and impartiality of Ld. Judge and the plea of bias as perceived by the applicant and pleaded in the transfer application is not correct”, it added.

It is Jain’s case that the observations made in the order dated November 17, 2022, by the district judge has “pre-decided the matter”. “There is severe apprehension in the mind of the applicant that he will not get fair hearing before the Ld. Special Judge Sh. Vikas Dhull and the apprehension is very much apparent from the records and the manner in which proceedings are being conducted”, he contended.

However, the court said that the power to transfer, withdraw or assignment of matters is discretionary but discretion must be exercised judiciously and on well-founded reasons and when a matter is transferred from one court to another, on the basis of apprehension of bias, it has larger repercussions. “

It not only derails the trial but is also demoralizing and demotivating for the judge concerned. Therefore, the transfer cannot be allowed on flimsy grounds as also law is well settled in this regard”, it said.

The court said that judicial orders are open to scrutiny by higher courts and just because some orders are against a particular side, it cannot be a ground to transfer the case.

The allegations of bias or prejudice are easy to plead but difficult to establish, it said.

“I find nothing against the neutrality and impartiality of Ld. Judge and the plea of bias as perceived by the applicant and pleaded in the transfer application is not correct. In my opinion, this is not a fit case for allowing transfer applications of the applicant. Accordingly, applications are dismissed.”, the judge ordered.

As per the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Jain, while holding the office as a Minister in the Government of Delhi, during the period from 14 February 2014 to 31 May 2017, had acquired assets that were disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The CBI filed a charge sheet on December 3, 2018, against Satyendar Kumar Jain, Poonam Jain (his wife), Ajit Prasad Jain, Sunil Kumar Jain, Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had initiated a money laundering investigation on the basis of a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the CBI on August 24, 2017 “under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988” against the six accused.

Case Title: Satyender Kumar Jain v. CBI & Ors.