Netra Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

B.A. Zaidi, J.—The complainant has come to this Court u/s 407, Cr. P.C.

The facts relating to this transfer application are that on the basis of a F.I.R. lodged by him, a Sessions Trial No. 922 of 2000, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307, I.P.C. is proceeding against five accused opposite party Nos. 2 to 6, which was earlier pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur. Three of the accused applied on 25.9.2007 to dispense with their personal presence during the trial which the Additional Sessions Judge refused and ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrants against them saying no medical certificate was filed in support.

The accused, therefore, moved an application (Crl. Transfer Application No. 7/2008) before Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur to transfer the trial to some other Court from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur, which the Sessions Judge, allowed by order dated 19.1.2008 and transferred the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Shahjahanpur.

That is what brings the complainant here u/s 407, Cr. P.C. praying that the case be re-transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur.

Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Shukla, and Sri R. K. S. Chauhan, Advocates, for the applicant and Sri Mohammad Israil Siddiqui, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

I have heard counsel for the applicant and Addl. Government advocate for the State.

It must be borne in mind that allowing a transfer application is a vote of no-confidence against the trial Judge and while the party triumphantly buckles up, the trial Judge feels humiliated and demoralised.

In the normal course, unless there is something extraordinary and something very positive a transfer application should not be allowed.

It must also be said at the same time that Courts should be liberal in granting exemptions, unless the presence of the accused is considered necessary, for some purpose, but the mere fact that the Court for some reasons, which have not been disclosed, wanted the accused to be present in person during trial, will not provide adequate grounds for transfer.

The Sessions Judge, while passing an order for transfer of the case has referred to an oft repeated aphorism that justice should not only be done but should also seem to have been done. The reference to this dogral in a situation like this, is misplaced. There were no indications that any injustice was being done and there were no grounds for apprehending any erosion of a partiality.

If the mere word of a party invites the application of the aforesaid principle, cases shall start being shuttle cocked from one Court to another ad-infinitum.

The trial must, therefore, go back to the Court which was hitherto trying the case.

Ordered accordingly.