Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 97 (JHR)

Ram Awadh Gupta v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-01-31

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
ORDER D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed seeking appropriate order of transfer of the case bearing Daltonganj Rail P.S. Case No. 14 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 428 of 2002, which is presently pending in the Court of the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj to the Court of Shri N. All, Special Judge, C.B.I., Rahchi. 2. The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner, who is a passenger, travelling by one Train No. 8101 UP Express had booked his Scooter at Ranchi to be unloaded at Garhwa. The vehicle was to be unloaded from the Garhwa Railway Station, but it was not unloaded. The petitioner approached the Station Master at the latters Office demanding unloading of the Scooter from the Train at the Railway Station. An altercation ensued between the petitioner and the Station Master. The petitioner, thereafter lodged a complaint at the Railway Police Station, alleging that the Station Master had made demand of illegal gratification for unloading the Scooter at the Garhwa Railway Station and had misbehaved with him. The case was registered for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other offences under the IPC against the Station Master, In respect of the same occurrence, the Station Master also lodged a complaint at the same Police Station against the petitioner, alleging, therein, that the petitioner had entered into his Office and had abused and misbehaved with the Station Master insisting upon unloading of the Scooter from the Train and had insulted and threatened him of filing a false complaint against him. On the aforesaid complaint of the Station Master, a separate case was registered at the same Police Station. Later on, by an order of this Court, the case involving the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act was transferred to the Court of the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi. The other case, namely, the case, which was registered on the complaint of the Station Master against the petitioner, continued to remain in the Court of the Railway Judicial Magistrate at Daltonganj. It is this case, which is sought by the petitioner to be transferred to the Court of the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi to be heard together with the case, which was registered on the basis of the petitioners complaint. 3. Mr. It is this case, which is sought by the petitioner to be transferred to the Court of the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi to be heard together with the case, which was registered on the basis of the petitioners complaint. 3. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that both the cases essentially arise out of the same occurrence, which refers to the altercation between the Station Master and the petitioner over unloading of the Scooter from the Railway Wagon at the Garhwa Railway Police Station. Learned Counsel argues that since both the cases are connected with each other, it is necessary for the ends of justice and for avoiding conflicting judgments, that both the cases be tried by one and the same Court and since the Court of the Railway Judicial Magistrate is not empowered to try the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the counter case, which is presently pending before the Railway Judicial Magistrate that needs to be transferred to the Court of the Special Judge, C.B.I. at Ranchi. 4. Mr. Ram Pravesh Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2, the informant/Station Master has objections to the prayer for transfer on the grounds that the allegations in both the cases are totally different. 5. Admittedly, both the cases arise out of the same alleged occurrence and the allegations in one are counter to the allegations of the other. It further appears that the case, which was transferred by this Court to the Court of the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi involves the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, was rightly transferred from the Court of the Railway Judicial Magistrate since the Railway Judicial Magistrate did not have power to try the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in several cases that cross cases should be tried by the same Court irrespective of the nature of the offence involved. The Rule of prudence also requires that in order to avoid conflicting judgments and for proper appreciation of the evidences, the trial for both the cases arising out of the same occurrence be conducted by the same Court. 7. There is merit in the grounds taken in this Transfer petition. 8. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The Rule of prudence also requires that in order to avoid conflicting judgments and for proper appreciation of the evidences, the trial for both the cases arising out of the same occurrence be conducted by the same Court. 7. There is merit in the grounds taken in this Transfer petition. 8. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The Case vide Daltonganj Rail P.S. Case No. 14 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 428 of 2002, which is presently pending in the Court of the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj is hereby ordered to be transferred to the Court of Shri N. Ali, Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi to be tried together with the complaint case No. 156 of 2002 presently pending in the Court of Shri N. Ali, Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi.