Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Under this sub-section, when an application is moved for the trial to be held by other Judge or Judges than one in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the Court is of the opinion that it is practicable to do so and in the interests of proper administration of justice, the application should be allowed. There are two considerations that must weigh while considering such a request. They are : (a) the Court should be of the opinion that it is practicable to do so; and (b) that it is in the interests of proper administration of justice that the application should be allowed. If these twin requirements are cumulatively fulfilled, then the concerned Judge is required to make a statement of facts of the case and place it before the Chief Justice for such directions as he may think fit to issue as respects trial of the charge. In the instant case, we notice that the learned Single Judge says (vide paragraph 35 of the order) that the prayer made by the contemner that the contempt notice be transferred to some other Judge, was outright rejected because, (a) it was a criminal contempt for which notice was given to her; (b) there was no legal necessity nor propriety in referring it to another Bench. We do not agree that merely because it was a case of criminal contempt, provisions of section 14(2) would not apply. This part of the reasoning does not appear to us to be correct. However, the other two reasons given by the learned Judge show substantial compliance with section 14(2) of the Act. We are not inclined to read sub-section (2) of section 14 as obligating the learned Judge to move for transfer merely because an application is made. There is no obligation to do so, even if it is practicable, unless the learned Judge in his judicial discretion, is of the view that in the interest of proper administration of justice such application should be allowed. In our view, this is precisely the requisite consideration as observed by the Supreme Court in the ultimate paragraph of the judgment in Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. The Chief Justice and Judges of the Pepsu High Court (supra) extracted above. We, therefore, respectfully reiterate what was observed by the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh Sodhi's case that, where there is an attack verbally or physically on a Presiding Judge in a Court, then the learned Single Judge must consider whether judicial propriety and the interest of administration of justice make it necessary for him to continue the hearing of the charge of contempt. The other facet, namely, that it is practicable to do so, is a matter of administrative convenience. The learned Single Judge rightly held that sub-section (2) of section 14 does not obligate the Judge to transfer the matter from his board, the moment such an application is made. It is in order to meet those rare contingencies, where a transfer application might have to be permitted under sub-section (2), that sub-section (3) of section 14 was enacted to prevent the learned Judge, in whose presence the contempt took place, from being called to give evidence. The test for allowing an application under Section 14(2) is : Does the learned Judge hearing feel embarrassed? If so, then he is entitled to and should request the learned Chief Justice to transfer the proceeding. Otherwise, he has jurisdiction to try the matter without allowing the application.