Amarendra Nath Chatterjee vs State and Others

Gorachand De, J.—By this application u/s 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the de facto complainant has prayed for transfer of the sessions case No. 6(5) of 2000 arising out of G. R. Case No. 742 of 1997 under Sections 498A/304B/ 302 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the 2nd Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura on the ground that most of the vital witnesses are residents of 24-Parganas (South), that the de facto complainant is an old man and that difficulties would be faced by the witnesses to attend the Bankura Court from 24-Parganas (South) as they have no residential accommodation at Bankura. Along with these grounds another ground is taken that there is apprehension of being mis-handled by known miscreants of Bankura as the accused person is an employee there. It appears from the materials on record that the marriage between. the daughter of the de facto complainant and the opposite party No. 2/ accused was solemnized within the police station Gosaba in the district of 24-Parganas (South), that the families of both the parties are residents of 24-Parganas (South), that after the marriage the daughter Aparna went with the accused Tapes to the working place of the husband at Bankura. that she died there as a result of which F.I.R. was lodged at Bankura Sadar police station and a case was started. The case was investigated and a charge-sheet was filed against the husband Shri Tapas Chatterjee. Subsequently charge was also framed against the accused person and on getting the summons to appear as the prosecution witness, the de facto complainant filed this application praying for transfer.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the provisions of Section 407(1)(c) contended that an order under this Section is expedient for the ends of justice and also for general convenience of the parties as well as the witness. In support of this contention reference was made to a Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in The Public Prosecutor Vs. D. Venkataranga Reddy, . In this case for the convenience of the parties and the witnesses the High Court thought it fit to transfer the case from one sessions division to another.

A Division Bench of this Court in AIR 1970 Gal. 241 (Pumananda Abhadoot vs. State & Ors.) also took a similar view. It was also found in such a fact situation that the trial should be held elsewhere though it may cause some inconvenience to the accused.

So the learned counsel for the petitioner made a forceful argument for transfer of this case from Bankura to Alipore Court, Head Quarter of 24-Parganas (South) District.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, contended that the details of the averments made in the instant application having not been supplied on the basis of supportive documents, he is not in a position to make any comment on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Of course, the learned counsel did not raise objection with regard to the legal position as indicated hereinabove.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2/ accused person, on the other hand, opposed the prayer by pointing out that on the ground of safety of the de facto complainant or of the witnesses, transfer of a case has been deprecated by the Apex Court in Ranjit Singh, Niranjan Singh and Karam Singh Vs. Popat Rambaji Sonavane and Others, . The same view was followed by a Bench of this Court in Mihir Saha vs. Madhu Chhanda Saha & Anr., reported in 2000 C Cr. L.R. (Gal) 238.

It is also contended by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 that the accused person has a rented house at Bankura. and as such, it would be difficult on his part to attend the Alipore Court in connection with the trial. Learned counsel also contended that the documents required to be annexed with the affidavit having not been annexed with the present petition, the petition is required to be rejected in limine.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, repudiated the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party pointing out that the notice of this case was served in the Gosaba address of the present Opposite Party No. 2/accused indicating that he has been residing there after his suspension from the Excise Department at Bankura in connection with this case. It is also pointed out that before framing of the charge all the documents were handed over to the accused person, and as such, the opposite party No. 2 is well acquainted with all the papers and hence, there is no reason to annex all these papers with this application. It is also pointed out that before getting the summons no information was received by the present petitioner, as regards the filing of the charge-sheet or framing of charge, required u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that most of the vital witnesses are residents of 24-Parganas (South) and as such, it is rightly pointed out that the witnesses will be in difficulty to attend the Bankura Court after spending a huge amount of time and energy from all the way from Gosaba to Bankura or from 24-Parganas (South) to Bankura. A list of witnesses with their addresses are also supplied in support of this contention. It is also to be noted that the present opposite party No. 2 is under suspension though he is a permanent employee of the Excise Department at Bankura. So keeping of a rented house there cannot be ruled out. But that accommodation would not be available to his adversaries like the prosecution witnesses. So keeping in view the fact situation of this case it appears that for the general convenience of the parties and/or witnesses, an order u/s 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is expedient.

As regards the apprehension of the de facto complainant or the witnesses of being mis-handled at the hands of the known miscreants, I fully agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party and without specific proof such apprehension has no basis and accordingly on that ground alone transfer of a case from one sessions division to another is not permissible in law.

Be that as it may, keeping In view the nature of the case, the address of the vital witnesses and the circumstances. I hold and conclude that this is a fit case in which an order of transfer of the sessions case should be passed u/s 407(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The application is accordingly allowed. The Sessions Case No. 6(5) of 2000 now pending before the Second Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Bankura is directed to be transferred to the District & Sessions Judge. 24-Parganas (South) at Alipore.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court at Bankura is directed to take appropriate steps for transfer of the entire record of Sessions Case No. 6(5) of 2000 from his Court to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, 24-Parganas (South) at Alipore within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order.

The Sessions Judge. South 24-Parganas at Alipore is directed to hear the sessions case himself or to transfer it to any other competent court in his sessions division at Alipore on receipt of the record from Bankura. The transferee Court shall proceed with the trial of the case from the stage at which it has arrived at Bankura and shall take appropriate steps for disposal of the case as expeditiously as possible.

The Criminal Revisional Application is, therefore allowed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the 2nd Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Bankura as also to the learned District & Sessions Judge, 24-Parganas (South) at Alipore. There will be no order as to costs.