Court allows ED petition seeking transfer of Satyendar Jain's money-laundering case

Allowing the agency’s application, Principal District and Sessions Judge Vinay Kumar Gupta said: ‘In my considered opinion, the judge is a very upright officer.

Published: 24th September 2022 08:35 AM  |   Last Updated: 24th September 2022 08:39 AM   |  A+A-

Enforcement Directorate (File Photo | PTI)

Enforcement Directorate used for representational purpose only. (File Photo | PTI)

By Express News Service

NEW DELHI: A Principal District and Sessions court on Friday allowed an Enforcement Directorate (ED) application seeking the transfer of the money laundering case against Delhi minister Satyendar Jain to another judge, saying the overall circumstances could raise apprehension of a probable bias.

The probe agency moved the petition seeking to transfer the case from the court of Special Judge Geetanjali Goel to any other competent judge stating that there is a reason to believe that the issues have been premeditated. Allowing the agency’s application, Principal District and Sessions Judge Vinay Kumar Gupta said: ‘In my considered opinion, the judge is a very upright officer.

However, all the circumstances taken together are sufficient to raise a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner as a common man, not of any actual bias, but a probable bias.’ Accordingly, the application is allowed and the case is withdrawn from the court of Special Judge Geetanjali Goel and transferred to the court of Special Judge Vikas Dhull, the Sessions judge added.

ALSO READ | Satyendar Jain bail: SC directs sessions court to hear on Sept 22 ED plea seeking transfer of hearing

 The Sessions court said the judicial process demands that a judge moves within the framework of relevant legal rules and the question is not whether the judge is actually biased, but whether the circumstances are such to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision.

“It is not necessary that the apprehension should arise from a single circumstance as it may be the cumulative effect of various circumstances past and present,” it said. Further, the Sessions court said that the agency’s plea had to be tested from the point of view of public justice and not on the ground of hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party.  

ALSO READ | No action against Satyendar Jain under Benami law: Delhi High Court

The agency  said that while there was no complaint against the judge, it was ‘ a case of probable bias in favour of the respondent and as such there was ‘reasonable apprehension’ in its mind that it might not get an independent hearing in the matter.’



Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp