Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2557 (ALL)

Laik Ahmad v. State Of U. P.

2010-08-20

SHRI KANT TRIPATHI

body2010
JUDGMENT: Shri Kant Tripathi, J. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, for the respondent no.2 and AGA for the respondent no.1 and perused the record. This is a petition for transfer of the criminal case arising out of crime no.17A/2010, under sections 147, 427, 504, 506 and 307 IPC, police station Kotwali Farrukhabad, district Farrukhabad from district Farrukhabad to some other district. The learned counsel for the applicant Laik Ahmad submitted that the District and Sessions Judge Farrukhabad is under the influence of respondent no.2 because the District and Sessions Judge Farrukhabad had held a meeting organised by the District Legal Services Authority, Farrukhabad in the house of one Muzaffar Husain, who is a very influential person. Due to that influence, the District and Sessions Judge Farrukhabad decided the criminal revision no. 119/2010 against the applicant by changing the date 26.6.2010 to 9.6.2010. It is also alleged that the father of the aforesaid Muzaffar Husain is a local BSP leader, and a final report in the cross case was submitted on his influence. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no. 2 had been seen in the chamber of the presiding officer on several occasions, therefore, the applicant apprehends that he will not get justice in district Farrukhabad. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith a copy of the program of the District Legal Services Authority, Farrukhabad, according to which on 6.5.2010 a legal literacy camp was organised in Zardauzi Ka Karkhana, Farrukhabad. It may not be out of context to mention that in the program prepared by the District Legal Services Authority (Annexure no. 1 to the supplementary affidavit) it is nowhere mentioned that the place where the legal literacy camp was organised is owned by Muzaffar Husain. 2. A comment of the District and Sessions Judge Farrukhabad has been obtained, which is on record, who has very categorically denied the fact that he had participated in the legal literacy camp on 6.5.2010. He has further clarified that he was on leave on 6.5.2010. The District and Sessions Judge has very categorically denied the fact that the respondent no.2 used to visit his chamber. He is not even known to C.J.M. personally. In view of specific denial by the District and Sessions Judge Farrukhabad, the allegations made in the transfer application do not appear to be true. 3. The District and Sessions Judge has very categorically denied the fact that the respondent no.2 used to visit his chamber. He is not even known to C.J.M. personally. In view of specific denial by the District and Sessions Judge Farrukhabad, the allegations made in the transfer application do not appear to be true. 3. It appears that the petitioner and other accused had earlier filed a petition u/s 482 CrPC no.15671/2010 for quashing the charge sheet, which was disposed of by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J. on 4.5.2010 providing interim protection to the petitioners and directed the courts below to dispose of the bail application expeditiously, if possible on the same day, but despite that order the applicant did not appear. Consequently, non bailable warrants were issued by the C.J.M. Farrukhabad, against which the petitioner and other accused filed a second petition under section 482 CrPC no. 21203/2010 which was also disposed of with the direction that the bail prayer of the petitioner and other accused shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously, if possible on the same day by the courts below. 4. It may also be mentioned that the applicant and other accused had also filed criminal revision no. 119/2010 in the court of Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad against the summoning order passed on the charge sheet submitted by the police but the learned sessions Judge, Farrukhabad dismissed the revision on 9.6.2010 and further provided 7 days' time to the applicant and other accused to surrender in the court concerned and stayed the execution of non bailable warrants during the said period of 7 days. Against the order dated 9.6.2010, the revisionist and other accused preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.12257/2010 in this Court, which was dismissed on 13.7.2010 by Hon'ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari, J. His Lordship further provided 30 days time to the applicant and other accused for moving application for bail before the courts below and directed that their bail applications shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law and kept the execution of non bailable warrants in abeyance. 5. The applicant has stated in this transfer application that the Sessions Judge had fixed 26.6.2010 in the aforesaid criminal revision for hearing but at the instance of the respondent no.2, changed the date from 26.6.2010 to 9.6.2010 and ultimately disposed of the revision on 9.6.2010. 5. The applicant has stated in this transfer application that the Sessions Judge had fixed 26.6.2010 in the aforesaid criminal revision for hearing but at the instance of the respondent no.2, changed the date from 26.6.2010 to 9.6.2010 and ultimately disposed of the revision on 9.6.2010. The learned counsel submitted that change of date of hearing itself indicates that the Sessions Judge was under the influence of the respondent no.2. This submission also has no substance. A copy of the order sheet maintained in the aforesaid criminal revision has been filed as Annexure no.3, a perusal whereof reveals that the criminal revision was entertained by Incharge Sessions Judge on 4.6.2010 and not by the Sessions Judge. The Incharge Sessions Judge fixed 26.6.2010 for hearing. On 5.6.2010, the respondent no. 2 moved an application for remitting the lower court record to the trial court and on that application the court fixed 8.6.2010 for hearing. The order dated 5.6.2010 was also passed by the Incharge Sessions Judge. On 8.6.2010, the counsel of both the parties were present and were also heard and the Sessions Judge fixed 9.6.2010 for judgment and accordingly delivered the judgment dismissing the revision. In this way the charges imputed against the Sessions Judge for making alteration of date due to the influence of the respondent no.2 does not appear to be correct. The change was made by the Incharge Sessions Judge. The applicant or his counsel had not objected to the change of date at the time of hearing before the Sessions Judge held on 8.6.2010. This implies that the applicant had no objection against change of date. Moreover, the judgment rendered by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision was confirmed by this Court vide the order dated 13.7.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.12257/2010. Therefore, this ground also fails. 6. The allegations made in the transfer application appear to be without any reasonable basis. No doubt if a person has an apprehension that he will not get justice from any presiding officer, he may seek transfer of the case but mere making allegations against the presiding officer without any reasonable basis can not be a ground to transfer the case and such type of practice must be deprecated. No doubt if a person has an apprehension that he will not get justice from any presiding officer, he may seek transfer of the case but mere making allegations against the presiding officer without any reasonable basis can not be a ground to transfer the case and such type of practice must be deprecated. The Court hearing the transfer application has to satisfy itself on the basis of the materials placed in support of the transfer application that there is reasonable apprehension that the applicant will not get justice. It is the satisfaction of the court alone that matters and not the allegations of the person seeking transfer. In the instant case the transfer application has been filed on altogether unfounded grounds, therefore, the transfer application is dismissed.