Karan Singh vs Khazan Singh

S.C. Malte, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has filed this application asking transfer of a Sessions trial from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind.

A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that such transfer application should have been filed in the Court of Sessions. In my opinion, that objection is without any substance in view of Clause (2) of Section 409 Cr.P.C. which states that transfer of Sessions Judge can be effected by the Sessions Judge, before the hearing of the case is commenced. In this case, admittedly, the Sessions trial has been partly heard inasmuch as deposition of some witnesses has already been recorded. In my opinion, therefore, the transfer application has been rightly filed in this Court.

In the transfer application, para 3 it is submitted that the learned trial Judge threatened the complainantpetitioner that he should not waste court papers by giving false statement as he was not going to take any action against the accused. In reply to that the report of the court indicates that the court was simply asking the witnesses to depose what is relevant and admissible. It appears that such warning given by the Court has been magnified by the petitioner by indicating that it was a threat by the Judge.

In para 4 of the petition it is stated that the Additional Sessions Judge threatened the witnesses to put them in jail for deposing falsely. In my opinion, such cautioning sometimes is given by the Court to the witness so that he should not speak or tell a lie on oath.

In para 5 of the petition it is stated that the learned Judge has given decision contrary to the reported case of this Court, and thereby denied the examination of the witnesses for the prosecution. Even if the Court happens to pass an erroneous order, that by itself would not be a sufficient ground to transfer the case.

In para 8 of the petition it is stated by the petitioner that on 6.10.1997 when the petitioner approached the Court for getting the application for copies to be sanctioned by the Court, the court in contemptuous manner uttered as follows :

"Dariwala don''t enter in my Court again and get out from my court otherwise I will make you straight."

6A. In the report submitted by the said Judge, he has denied these allegations. Thus it is word against word. The petitioner has not cared to file affidavit of a witness in support of his allegations.

In this context, it may be noted that in the note at page 7 of the petition it has been indicated that on 7.10.1997 the petitioner in person submitted an application to the High Court for transfer of the case, but that application had been returned by the Registry with some objections. Strangely enough, that application is not appended with this petition. It, therefore, appears that the petitioner does not want to reveal the contents of such application. The counsel for the petitioner submits that now he would put that petition before the Court. In my opinion, that is now too late. As such the aspect of filing such petition previously on 7.10.1997 has been brought to light by the counsel for the respondent.

In the result, this petition stands dismissed.