Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1268 (ALL)

Ravidas Mehrotra v. State of U. P

2014-04-21

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI II

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J. This transfer application has been filed by the petitioner that after receiving the order of this Court, Presiding Officer of the Trial Court made certain comments in the open Court. 2. Heard Sri Ganga Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 3. A perusal of the record reveals that the Session Trial No.1215/2010, Case Crime No.143/1993, under Sections 147,148,149,307,336,427 IPC and Section 5 Explosive Act, and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Chowk, District-Lucknow is pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Lucknow. 4. Non bailable warrant and order for recovery of Rs.50,000/- and proclamation of Section 83 Cr.P.C. was issued in respect of appearance of the petitioner. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that petition was disposed by directing the applicant to appear before the Court below on next date and to file fresh personal bond and sureties and the ordered that after filing the same, applicant be released on bail on the same date on payment of Rs.5000/- as legal cost payable to District Legal Services Association, Lucknow. It has been alleged that applicant appeared before the Court and the Court started making comments over this Hon'ble Court and he became annoyed. There are certain allegations levelled against the presiding officer in the memo of petition which are mentioned in para 6,7,8,9 and 10. 5. Report was called from the presiding officer who has denied those allegations it has been mentioned in the report that as the case is too old, so the orders are being passed for disposing the case expeditiously. 6. Transfer application was also moved before the Sessions Judge who has rejected the transfer application. 7. A perusal of the memo of transfer application reveals that petitioner is/was a Member of Legislative Assembly and due to this he did not appear before the Trial Court which according to him was neither deliberate nor intentional. 8. The Apex Court has time to time directed the Courts below to expedite the disposal of criminal cases against Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly within a given time frame. It appears that the petitioner is trying to delay the disposal of the case by resorting to tactics remaining absent in the Court and moving transfer applications. 9. The Apex Court has time to time directed the Courts below to expedite the disposal of criminal cases against Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly within a given time frame. It appears that the petitioner is trying to delay the disposal of the case by resorting to tactics remaining absent in the Court and moving transfer applications. 9. This transfer application is without merit and a ploy to delay the disposal of the case which is pending since 1993. 10. This transfer application is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected.