A Delhi court has transferred the proceedings of the Bhushan Steel money laundering case to a different judge after the accused in the case raised an objection regarding the first judge.
The court of Principal District and Sessions judge Anju Bajaj Chandna transferred the case proceedings from the court of Special Judge (PC Act) Jagdish Kumar to Special Judge (PC Act) Mukesh Kumar on May 1, after Justice Jagdish Kumar allegedly remarked, “Lene do datein, ED [Enforcement Directorate] matters mein kaunsi bail hoti hai (Let them keep taking dates, after all, who gets bail in ED cases)”.
“Justice should not only be done, but it should be seen to be done, and given that the applicant has expressed apprehension duly supported by the affidavit of his wife, it cannot be said to be misconceived or misplaced,” the court said, adding that fairness and equality were “hallmarks” of the criminal justice system.
The court added that because the matter was at its initial stage, no prejudice would be caused to the answering respondent if the case was heard by any other court of competent jurisdiction.
In the transfer plea filed by the accused, Ajay S. Mittal , the applicant said that the judge, after hearing his bail plea on April 25, was overheard to have passed the remark after the counsels left the court room.
“The applicant does not expect a fair and proper opportunity to represent his case,” read Mr. Mittal’s transfer plea.
The ED, meanwhile, opposed the plea, stating that the applicant had “failed to demonstrate reasonable apprehension on the totality of all the facts”.
The court, however, maintained that the perception of the applicant wherein he does not expect an impartial hearing from the court must also be taken into consideration.
“Judges are obliged to decide the cases before them with impartiality, integrity, and by ensuring equality of treatment, and in doing so, judges are upholding the rule of law,” the court said.
The ED’s money laundering case against Bhushan Steel Limited stems from a chargesheet filed against the company by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office — an investigative arm of the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs — alleging a ₹56,000-crore bank loan fraud carried out by the promoters of the company.
