'Undue Influence, Violates Fair Trial': P&H HC Transfers Cheating Case Against District Court Lawyer After Advocates Decline Brief Against Him

The Punjab & Haryana High Court transferred a cheating case to another district as the accused persons were lawyers in the same Court where the plea was filed, and lawyers at the district court refused to accept a brief against them. 

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The inability of a litigant to secure effective legal assistance due to reluctance caused by undue influence or creation of a hostile environment by the opposite party, especially where the accused is an Advocate practicing in the same Court, compromises the foundational principles of fair trial."

The Court added that it is trite law that the inability to engage a legal counsel owing to reluctance caused by local factors may constitute a valid ground for transfer of trial under Section 407 Cr.P.C.

Reliance was placed on Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat [(2004) 4 SCC 158], wherein a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court opined that a free trial would necessarily involve the creation of a neutral atmosphere where parties can participate freely by availing effective legal assistance.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had lodged the FIR (Sections 420, 467, 471, 468 and 120-B of IPC) against the respondents for preparing a forged Will in the name of the petitioner's late uncle, namely, Manjit Singh, in order to usurp the property of the deceased.

He further contended that the three accused in the FIR are Advocates, practising in the same district where the FIR  is pending. For this reason, no Advocate from the said district was willing to represent the petitioner, which had caused great prejudice and inconvenience to him.

State counsel submitted that ASI Rajwinder Singh had inquired into the assertion that no Advocate was willing to represent the petitioner against the private respondents and found the same to be correct. However, the Advocates of Ajnala Bar Association had refused to record any statements in this regard.

After examining the submissions, the Court said that, "since the petitioner is unable to secure profitable legal representation in Amritsar, this Court finds it appropriate to transfer the trial to another district by invoking Section 447 of the BNSS, in the interest of justice."

Consequently, the Court transferred the case from Ajnala, from Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar to to the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur.

"Learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar is directed to transfer the record pertaining to the aforesaid case to learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who will assign the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Hoshiarpur," added the Court.

Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Lokesh Garg, Advocate for Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

Title: DALJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Click here to read/download the order