Lalit and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—In this transfer application, the only prayer of the applicants is for the transfer of the Case No. 826 of 2003, State v. Lalit and others Case No. 826 of 2003, from the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Agra. The case is under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

I have heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, advocate for the applicants and Sri S. L. Kesharwani, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The only ground mentioned in this application for seeking transfer is that the Presiding Officer did not provide an opportunity for producing defence evidence. Even this request has been culled out from the grounds of petition because the petition is wholly perfunctory and haphazard, and no facts have been mentioned therein, as will appear from the order of Sessions Judge, Agra by which he rejected the application of the applicants.

The words used in the grounds of petition are that re-examination of the witnesses was not allowed, which is wholly inconsistent with facts, and contrary to what has been argued because ''re-examination'' means further examination of a witness who has already been examined. Here the real plea of the applicants is that they wanted to produce two defence witnesses for which opportunity was not provided.

The entire series of facts relating to the facts has been enumerated in detail by the Sessions Judge in his order of rejecting transfer application dated 30.10.2006, copy whereof is on record. The applicants had earlier come to the Hon''ble Court in Revision (No. 4629 of 2006) and the Hon''ble Court passed the following order:

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.

After perusal of the record, it appears that one application to summon the defence witnesses on behalf of the accused/revisionists was filed on 4.2.2006 in the trial court and same was allowed to summon two defence witnesses vide order dated 10.4.2006. Step was taken within three days by the accused-revisionists and 2.5.2006 was fixed for producing the defence witness. On that date revisionists/accused did not produce above defence witnesses. Consequently, opportunity to produce defence witnesses on behalf of the accused revisionist was closed by the trial court. It appears that trial court was interfered in deciding the case by closing the opportunity to produce the defence witnesses. One more opportunity should also have been given. Consequently, door of hearing should not have been closed without giving sufficient opportunity. Therefore, impugned order passed by the courts below is hereby liable to be quashed.

Thus, revision is allowed and impugned order passed by the court below is set aside. Learned court below is directed to allow the application No. 58 Kha of the accused-revisionists by providing one more opportunity to produce defence witnesses.

Sd/- Shiv Shanker 22.8.2006.

Thereafter, not on but three dates September 6th, 7th and 16th, 2006 were given for production of remaining defence evidence by the Petitioner but the accused-applicants failed to do so and the trial court had, therefore, to close defence evidence.

In these circumstances it is apparent that the applicants, for some reason or the other, delay the proceedings and create complications and confusion.

In these circumstances, the request for transfer is wholly untenable and unwarranted, and is, unequivocally declined.

Transfer application rejected.

A copy of this order be sent to Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 1 through District Judge, Agra by the Registry forthwith.