Judicial propriety demands that I don't hear CBI case as well: Special Judge from whom Satyendar Jain ED case was transferred

The Special Court hearing the case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain has said that “judicial propriety demands” it does not further hear the case in view of the recent transfer of the money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Jain to another court [CBI v. Satyender Kumar Jain & Ors]..Special Judge Geetanjali Goel noted that as the ED case, stemming from the same allegations, was transferred by the Principal District and Sessions Judge to another court, it would be appropriate that her court does not deal with the CBI case as well.“Considering the facts and circumstances, which have arisen during the course of arguments on bail application in Directorate of Enforcement v. Satyendar Kumar Jain and subsequent transfer of the said matter from this Court, judicial propriety demands that this Court does not further hear this matter to allay any apprehension of probable bias,” the order stated..The matter was, therefore, directed to be placed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge for appropriate orders and the accused persons were ordered to be produced before the same court on October 19.During the hearing, Judge Goel was informed by Jain's counsel that an application was filed seeking withdrawal of Jain’s SLP before the Supreme Court, challenging the transfer of the money laundering case to another judge.Senior Counsel representing Jain submitted that there was no legal bar on the court hearing the matter in view of legal provisions. He referred to Section 44 (offences triable by sessions courts) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors to contend that detailed submissions have already been made on behalf of the accused persons, much judicial time has been spent and the matter was only to be listed for order on the point of charge. The court also recorded the submission of the CBI counsel, who personally had no objection to Judge Goel hearing the matter. The court, however, felt otherwise, and placed the proceedings before the Principal District and Sessions Judge..On September 24, the Principal District and Sessions Judge had accepted the plea of the ED and transferred the ED case against Jain and others to the court of Special Judge Vikas Dhull.The CBI had initially registered a case against Jain under Sections 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) read with 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.The case was registered on the allegation that Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons between 2015 and 2017 (check period) which he could not satisfactorily account for..Senior Advocate N Hariharan and Advocates Vivek Jain, Vaibhav Yadav appeared for Jain and his wife Poonam Jain.Advocates Dr Sushil Kumar Gupta, Nischay Bajaj and Avi Mitra represented accused Ajit Prasad Jain, Vaibhav Jain, Sunil Kumar Jain and Ankush Jain.Senior Public Prosecutor Pankaj Kumar Gupta argued for CBI..[Read Order]