NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court last week transferred the Lakhu bhai Pathak trial in the one lakh dollars cheating case to another judge but refused to quash the summons issued to former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao. Justices S.C. Agarwal and G.T. Nanavatty observed that CMM Prem Kumar had acted “fairly and impartially.” At the same time, they said that in the interest of justice “observations made by the CMM and the High Court would not preclude the court concerned from hearing the plea of the petitioner on merits for recalling or discharge of the summon order.” The Bench also granted exemption to the former Prime Minister from personal appearance till the new magistrate rejects Mr. Rao’s application for either withdrawal of the notice or his discharge. The judges, however, said if the court passes an order against the petitioner it might do so with suitable directions. The two apex court judges disposed of the Special Leave Petition of Mr. Rao against the July 30 order of Delhi High Court Justice S.K. Mahajan upholding the summons issued by CMM Kumar to Mr. Rao on July 9. In their order the judges said that on behalf of Mr. Rao it had been submitted that the CMM in passing the order had not considered the statement of Lakhu bhai Pathak and the documents produced during the course of his statement in a proper perspective. They further added that it had been urged that the power conferred under the section is an extraordinary one to be used very sparingly and only when compelling reasons exist and that the evidence in the present case did not justify the exercise of the power by the CMM. The two judges also said that though it was open to Mr. Rao to appear before the CMM in response to the summons and ask for recalling the order dated July 9, there was little likelihood of Mr. Rao succeeding in view of the observations that have been made by the CMM in his order dated July 9. They added that though there was no canes for apprehension in the mind of Mr. Rao that he would not receive a proper hearing if the matter went before the same Judicial Officer, but keeping in view the principle that justice should not only be done but also appear to be done, and without casting any reflection on Mr. Kumar.

Article extracted from this publication >>  August 28, 1996