Introduction:

In a petition filed by Govindji s/o Khodaji Maganji Thakor, the Gujarat High Court took serious note of allegations against a judicial officer of the Sessions Judge rank, concerning their conduct during proceedings in a forgery and cheating case. The petitioner, apprehensive of injustice due to alleged bias and preconceived notions by the presiding officer, sought a stay on the proceedings and a departmental inquiry. Justice Sandeep Bhatt, acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, directed the Principal District Judge to provide a detailed explanation from the concerned judicial officer and stayed the proceedings until final disposal.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner argued that the presiding officer’s undue observations and remarks during the hearings demonstrated bias and favouritism toward the accused. He alleged that the judicial officer questioned the delay in filing the FIR, overlooked critical evidence, and prematurely granted bail to the accused. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that his counsel was denied access to certified case documents, thereby obstructing the fair conduct of proceedings. He supported his plea by highlighting procedural lapses during the investigation, such as the absence of crucial evidence in the charge sheet, including the forged Power of Attorney, and the omission of implicated officials like the Sub-Registrar and Mamlatdar.

The respondents, however, countered these allegations, asserting that the judicial officer had acted within their discretion and based on the material presented. They argued that the delay in filing the FIR and the petitioner’s failure to pursue the matter earlier weakened the credibility of the claims. The accused emphasized that the officer’s remarks and decisions, including granting bail, were in line with procedural norms and judicial discretion. They further argued that the petitioner’s allegations stemmed from dissatisfaction with the court’s decisions rather than actual bias.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Sandeep Bhatt, after reviewing the petition, observed that the allegations against the judicial officer were serious and warranted a detailed explanation. While recognizing the judiciary’s integrity, the court noted that such claims required scrutiny to uphold public confidence in the judicial system. Consequently, the court directed the Registry to forward the petition and supporting documents to the Principal District Judge and sought a detailed explanation from the judicial officer. The Principal District Judge was instructed to submit the officer’s explanation, along with remarks, through the Registrar General, before January 1, 2025.

The court also granted interim relief by staying the proceedings until final disposal and scheduled the next hearing for January 6, 2025. This order, while not making any conclusive findings on the allegations, emphasized the importance of ensuring transparency and fairness in judicial proceedings.