Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Dileep Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. I.B. Singh, Special Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State.
(2.) THE Petitioner has prayed for issuing a direction to conclude the trial in question through a Judge other than the Presiding Judge, on the ground that he has already made up his mind by dictating the judgment, of which the pronouncement was stayed by this Court. In support of his submission the Petitioner has relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case of Md. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam, reported in, JT 2011 (2) SC 527, in paragraph 19 and 20, which are extracted below: 19. For the reasons stated above, we allow this Appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision after hearing Mr. Sinha, the new learned Counsel for the Appellant in the High Court, or any other counsel which has been engaged by the Appellant, or in the absence of these, an amicus curiae being a lawyer practicing on the criminal side. 20. The case shall be heard by a Bench of Judges other than those who passed the impugned judgment. The main ground for seeking such a relief is that since late evening of 14th of April, 2011 one ETV Channel was exhibiting the story of Manoj Gupta's case. The background voice repeatedly stated that tomorrow the accused persons will be sentenced by the trial court, whereas the judgment of the trial court is yet to be pronounced. This factor of exhibition was communicated to the learned Presiding Judge through an application moved on behalf of the accused -applicants.
(3.) THROUGH another application it was also stated that the exhibited story of the case on T.V. Channel amounts to interference in the administration of justice, which makes liable the concerned guilty persons to punish under the Contempt of the Courts Act. The trial court has registered the same as a separate case. It is also stated that the Trial Judge was to hand over the charge on 15th of April, 2011, but by means of administrative order dated 13th of April, 2011 he has been permitted to continue to stay for further period of three months. Thus the circumstances which were on the date of pronouncement of the judgment have changed now, therefore, in light of the observations made in paragraph 20 of Md. Sukur Ali case (Supra), the trial of the case be handed over to other Judge of competent jurisdiction. It is submitted that since the Presiding Judge of trial court had already made up his mind and dictated the judgment for its pronouncement on 15th of April, 2011, as per the established law as in Md. Sukur case (Supra) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under the judicial propriety, the arguments may be heard afresh by any Judge other than the Presiding Judge, under the changed events and circumstances in the interest of justice to ensure the faith and confidence in the judicial system in the administration of justice.;