CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Shyamlal Choudhari vs Sant Kumar and Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 23 November 2001 · Citation: (2002) 1 MPHT 212

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.S. Azad, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 311, 407 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 294 · Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 1168 of 2001
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 360 words

N.S. Azad, J.—Arguments heard.

2.

It is submitted by Shri S.K.P. Verma that the respondent/accused is facing trail in Civil Case No. 16/2001 for offence punishable u/s 3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and u/s 294 of the IPC in the Court of Special Judge posted at Narsinghpur is Chief Municipal Officer in Municipality, Narsinghpur and is very influenced.

3.

It is also submitted by Shri S.K.P. Verma that the accused so also the Presiding Judge of the Special Court belong to one and the same caste i.e., Brahmin. It is further submitted by Shri Verma that the Public Prosecutor is also a Brahmin and hence this petitioner apprehends that a fair trial is not possible at Narsinghpur.

4.

It is also found stated in the petition that once the Presiding Judge of the Trial Court asked the complainant to go and call the accused from his office, who did not attend the Court in spite of service of several summons. The petitioner is also working in Municipality, Narsinghpur as Pump Operator.

5.

It is further found alleged in the petition that on 5th September, 2001 the peon posted in the Court of Special Judge Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, came to the office of Nagar Palika, Narsinghpur and made enquiries about the accused, as Presiding Judge Shri Sharma wanted to go to Indore for eye treatment of his friend.

6.

The rejection of petitioner''s application filed u/s 311 of the Cr.PC is lastly stated to be on the ground for transfer.

7.

An order passed on judicial side does not furnish ground for transfer. Similarly, the fact of accused or complainant belonging to the same caste to which the Presiding Judge belongs, also does not weigh in transfer of the case. Other allegations levelled in this petition have no substance and hence I do not find any ground for transfer of the case from the Court of Special Judge, Narsinghpur.

8.

This petition therefore does not merit which is accordingly disallowed and rejected.

9.

M.Cr.P. No. 5926/2001 seeking stay of proceeding in the Special Case No. 16/2001 is also consequently disallowed and rejected.

10.

Criminal Revision rejected.