- (1.) A Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in Transfer Petition no. 16 of 1968 was listed before this bench on 22/03/1971. When thepetition, was taken up for hearing the petitioner Amrik Singh raised an objection to the composition of the bench. He suggested that two of the judges constituting the bench are interested in the case and therefore they are incompetent to hear this matter. In view of this representation we directed him to file an affidavit setting out the facts supporting his allegation. At this stage I may mention that at an earlier stage in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 569 of 1968, he had alleged that all the Judges of this court, excepting the then chief justice, Justice Hidayatullah, and one other judge were incompetent to hear his transfer application as they were all concerned in the case. Possibly because of the said allegation the learned chief Justice thinking that justice must not only be one but must seem to be done, listed the petition before a bench consisting of Judges against whom the petitioner had no objection. The learned chief justice, Justice Hidayatullah, retired on 16/12/1970. Two of the Judges who are members of this bench were elevated to this court after Criminal Miscellaneous Petition no. 569 of 1968 was filed. Hence if the allegations of Amrik Singh are correct, one of the Judges of this court excepting one is competent to hear his petition. Under the Rules of this court a bench must consist of at least two Judges.
(2.) In view of the allegations of the petitioner made on 22/03/1971 referred to earlier, we directed him on that day to file an affidavit on that day itself setting out the facts supporting his allegations. On the same day he filed an affidavit. The relevant portion of the affidavit reads thus: "3.That my objection to the constitution of the bench for hearing the above-noted matter is based on the fact (without casting any aspersion on the Supreme court or the Hon'ble Judges) that out of the huge sums involved in those cases (especially the case under f. I. R. No. 5/53/spe/cia and F. I. R. No. 5/56 of the SPF, under sections 120-B, 409, 420, etc. etc. Indian penal code many items of expenditure had been shown under different heads and payments to different persons for specified purposes clearly shown in the documentary evidence submitted in the said cases including the statements submitted by me under S. 164, Cr. P. C. , along with Annexures etc. etc. , dated March 31, 1959 and the supplementary statements and annexures before the court of special Magistrate incharge of those two main cases along with some other proceedings re-opened against me by the S. P. E. as mentioned in the above-noted orders issued to the Respondents fur producing the original records. 4. That amongst the aforesaid items of expenditure and payments made to and through many named persons, the names of two gentlemen have also been clearly mentioned as Shri A. N. Ray and shri Jaganmohan Reddy (along with others) (both of whom are now the Hon'ble Judges of this court constituting the bench hearing this matter) during the period before they were elevated to the Supreme court bench. "
(3.) The petitioner has also mentioned therein that the allegations made by him are supported by the following documents : "(I) Statements under S. 164, Cr. P. C. , dated 31/03/1959, with all Annexures submitted in the court of the Special magistrate in-charge SPE Cases at Delhi, in the connected cases including the case under FIR-5/53/cia/spe and the Case under F. I. R. No. 5/56 of the SPE Delhi under S. 120-B. 409 and 420, Indian penal code, etc. etc. , along with Supplementary Statements and affidavits filed by me. (Ii) 'receipt' for Rs. 50,000. 00 and 'pronote' for Rs. 10,000. 00 forming part of the F. I. R. No. 5/56 noted above. (Iii) court orders of the Special Magistrate SPE Cases, dated 9/06/1961. (Iv) Orders, dated 2/01/1965 passed by the District and sessions Judge, Delhi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 289 of 25/09/1964. (V) court orders of Mr. P. D. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, delhi, dated 11/10/1958, in Case No. 95 of 1958. ";