Natural justice – Bias – Judicial conduct– No one can act in judicial capacity if his previous conduct gives ground for believing that he cannot act with an open mind or impartially

The Appellant had filed a complaint against the Respondents. Subsequently, the charges were framed against the Respondents u/s. 498A, 304B read with section 34 and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by Shri. Prithvi Raj, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge dated 15-05-1995. Thereafter, the case was listed before Shri. S.N. Dhingra, Additional Sessions Judge for the trial, however, the learned Judge had recused from hearing the matter for personal reasons vide Order dated 25-09-2000.

Accordingly, the case was withdrawn from the Court of Shri. S.N. Dhingra, Additional Sessions Judge and transferred to the Court of Shri. S.M. Chopra, Additional Sessions Judge vide the Order dated 29-09- 2000 of the Sessions Judge. Eventually the accused Respondents were tried and acquitted vide judgment and Order dated 22-03-2003 passed by Ms. Manju Goel, Additional Sessions Judge. Being aggrieved by the judgment and Order, the Appellant preferred a revision petition before the High Court. The same was dismissed vide impugned final judgment and Order dated 01-09-2010 passed by learned Judge, Shri. Justice S.N. Dhingra.

The Court observed that it is apparent that the fact of earlier recusal of the case at the trial by learned Shri Justice S.N. Dhingra himself, was not brought to his notice in the revision petition before the High Court by either of the parties to the case. Therefore, Shri Justice S.N. Dhingra, owing to inadvertence regarding his earlier recusal, has dismissed the revision petition by the impugned judgment. In our opinion, the impugned judgment, passed by Shri Justice S.N. Dhigra subsequent to his recusal at trial stage for personal reasons, is against the principle of natural justice and fair trial. It is well settled law that a person who tries a cause should be able to deal with the matter placed before him objectively, fairly and impartially. No one can act in a judicial capacity if his previous conduct gives ground for believing that he cannot act with an open mind or impartially. The broad principle evolved by this Court is that a person, trying a cause, must not only act fairly but must be able to act above suspicion of unfairness and bias.