AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this application filed under Section 526 Cr.P.C., the petitioner inter alia seeks retaining of challan No.10 dated 30.04.2010 titled 'State through VOJ vs Mumtaz Hussain Bhat', which is pending before the court of learned Special Judge, Anticorruption, Jammu, with a prayer that the same be tried by the afore said Court instead of transferring it to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri.
Brief facts of the case are that in 2007 an FIR No. 1/2007 came to be registered against the applicant by the respondent allegedly for the commission of offences u/s 5(1)(e) read with section 5(2) the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat 2006. Subsequently after investigation, the challan was produced on 01.05.2010 before the court of learned Special Judge, Anticorruption Jammu where after on 04.11.2011 charges were framed against the applicant and the prosecution was directed to lead their evidence. The prosecution as on date recorded the statements of about 7 witnesses and the matter is pending trial for prosecution witnesses. It is further stated that during the pendency of aforesaid challan the applicant had been diagnosed as cancer patient of high grade and got his treatment from Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Search Center, New Delhi, where the applicant had been operated upon. The urine bladder of the applicant was completely removed and an artificial bladder was created. The applicant is suffering from a dreaded disease and even as on today he is under treatment and on many occasions the hemoglobin of the applicant was decreased upto 5 gm. The applicant is facing serious life threat on account of the aforesaid cancer disease and due to the aforesaid health problem of the applicant, the learned trial court vide its order dated 04.11.2011 while framing the charges against the applicant, exempted permanently from personal appearance and with effect from 04.11.2011 he is being represented through his counsel. The respondent No.1 has now issued a communication conferring the jurisdiction of all the cases of District Poonch and Rajouri pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act upon the learned Additional Judge, Rajouri, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, Anticorruption Jammu.
The applicant is aggrieved of the aforesaid order to the extent it divested the jurisdiction of learned Anticorruption Jammu to try the aforesaid challan and seeks retaining of the aforesaid challan before the same court, under Section 526 Cr. P. C. read with section 561-A Cr.P.C amongst other on the following grounds:-
a) That the prosecution has cited as many as 34 witnesses in the challan in which only few are the residents of District Poonch and rest all are the official witnesses based in Jammu itself and in so far as the witnesses who are resident of District Poonch are concerned the statement of maximum of them has already been recorded. In this view of the matter no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent in case the aforesaid case is tried at Jammu instead of Rajouri. Rather it would be more convenient for the respondent than the applicant to try the challan before the Ld. Special Judge, Anticorruption, Jammu.
b) That since the applicant is suffering from deadly disease who has already been exempted from personal appearance on medical ground and he is not in a position to approach the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge Rajouri or to engage any lawyer stationed at Rajouri. Moreover in Rajouri there is no proper accommodation facility as compare to Jammu. Moreover the prosecution has also filed a petition u/s 561-A Cr.P.C against the applicant being 561-A Cr.P.C No.11/2007 titled Vigilance Organization V/s Mumtaz Hussain Bhat which is pending disposal before this Hon'ble Court. The applicant in the aforesaid petition as also in the challan pending before Ld Special Judge, Anticorruption Jammu has engaged the same counsel and now after spending lacs of rupees on his medical treatment the applicant is not in a position to engage a fresh lawyer to contest on his behalf at Rajouri. In this view of the matter the aforesaid challan is liable to be retained before the Ld. Special Judge, Anticorruption Jammu instead of transferring it to the Ld. Additional Session Judge, Rajouri.
Learned counsel for the respondents has filed the objections wherein it is stated that the present application is misconceived and baseless. No right is vested in the petitioner to seek the transfer of a case which is pending before the competent court of jurisdiction, merely because the petitioner wants to engage the same counsel who contests all his cases. The application merits rejection out rightly on this score. It is further stated that the facts stated in the petition are a matter of record insofar as it pertains to the registration of FIR No.01/2007 and the production of challan before the court of learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu as well as the framing of charges against the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
In reply to the grounds on which the petitioner has sought a direction for retaining the case in the court of learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu, it is submitted that the total number of 34 witnesses were cited in the case. So far seven (07) witnesses have been examined, out of which three (03) were from Jammu and four (04) were from Rajouri /Poonch. In fact, among 34 witnesses cited, only 18 numbers of witnesses are from Jammu and 16 are from Rajouri/ Poonch. The case stands already transferred to Rajouri in the month of March, 2015 and the question of retaining the same by the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu does not arise.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
From bare perusal of this petition, it is evident that petitioner has sought relief of restraining the court of Special Judge Anti Corruption Jammu to transfer the case to Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri (Anti corruption Court); this relief has become redundant as case has already been transferred to said court in terms of SRO 20 dated 16.01.2015.
But as per pleadings of the petitioner, which is supported with medical records, it is evident that petitioner is suffering from Type 2 DM with dyslipideme with neuropaths, a cancer disease (high grade); he has got his treatment at Rajiv Gandhi Hospital, New Delhi; his urine bladder has been removed as per certificate of Doctor. These facts have not been denied by respondent in objections. No prejudice shall be caused to the prosecution as maximum numbers of witnesses are official witnesses. It is really difficult for petitioner to attend the case at Rajouri which is a distance of 150 km from Jammu.
So keeping in view all facts and circumstances of the case, criminal challan No.10 dated 30.04.2010 titled 'State through VOJ vs Mumtaz Hussain Bhat', pending before the court of learned Additional Session Judge Rajouri (Special Judge, Anticorruption) is withdrawn and transferred to the court of learned Additional Anti Corruption Judge, Jammu. Copy be sent to both the courts below for compliance.
The instant application stands disposed of accordingly.