TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court where it is presently pending to any other Sessions Court at Rohini or Tis Hazari. 3. Sessions Case No. 1006 of 2009 arises out of FIR No. 156/2008 registered at P.S. Mukherjee Nagar for commission of offences punishable Under Sections 323/354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(X)(XI)(XV) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, before whom the matter is currently pending, appears to have heard the parties on the question of framing of charges and by an order dated 22nd March, 2010 discharged the accused persons for the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. The case was in that view made over to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y on the ground that the order passed by the High Court has made it sufficiently clear that the observations made in the order passed by the trial Court shall not influence any fresh order which the said Court may pass pursuant to the remand made by the High Court. The High Court has also observed that the complainant (Appellant herein) had while filing Crl. R.P. No. 242 of 2010 against the discharge order expressed no apprehension nor sought transfer of the case from the Court where it is pending to any other Court. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length. It is true that the trial Court had while discharging the accused persons under the Special Act mentioned above, made certain observations about the alleged misu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the matter. The present appears to be one such case where despite the safeguards provided by the High Court's observations, the apprehension of the complainant continues to subsist. We do not think that such apprehension is wholly misconceived nor can it be dubbed as forum shopping in disguise. The earlier order passed by the trial Court is so strongly worded that it could in all likelihood give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the complainant which cannot be lightly brushed aside. We must hasten to add that we are not in the least suggesting that the Presiding Officer of the trial Court is totally incapable of adopting a fair approach while passing a fresh order but then the question is not whether the Judge is biased....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... R. Banumathi, J. 8. I have had the benefit of going through the judgment proposed by his Lordship Justice T.S. Thakur. For the reasons which I have indicated below, I am unable to agree with the proposed final decision and in my view, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. The Appellant seeks transfer of Sessions Case No. 1006/2009 arising out of FIR No. 156/2008 registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. As per the allegations made by the complainant/Appellant in the FIR dated 4.5.2008, they have been the tenants under the accused persons and on 3.5.2008, accused/Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 obstructed and abused them by uttering objectionable caste based remarks against them. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the accused cannot be permitted merely because the learned Sessions Judge had made certain observations and recorded finding in the earlier order dated 22.3.2010 while allowing the discharge petition. The said order dated 22.3.2010 was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remanded to the Sessions Court to consider the matter afresh being uninfluenced by any observation made in the earlier order. When the earlier order has been set aside by the High Court and the matter was remitted back to the Sessions Court for consideration of the matter afresh, apprehension of the Appellant that the learned trial judge may not adopt a fair approach is untenable. 12. As rightly pointed out by the High Court, earlier when the revision petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns or possible assumptions are not sufficient for transfer of a case. Only on good and sufficient grounds a transfer can be ordered. In my considered view, the Appellant has not made out any good and sufficient ground for transfer. 15. It is also pertinent to note that any casual observations made by a presiding officer of trial court would not be a sufficient ground for transfer for the reason that the trial courts work in a charged atmosphere and they do not have the benefit of a detached atmosphere of the higher courts so as to think cooly and decide patiently. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the decision of this Court in K.P. Tiwari v. State of M.P. 1994 (Supp. 1) SCC 540, in which this Court has observed as under: "...The h....