Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 287 (MP)

Ramu @ Ramlal v. State of M. P.

2014-03-12

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2014
ORDER 1. By this revision petition under section 397/401 of the CrPC the petitioners have prayed for transfer to the petition as well as appointment of an advocate. 2. Briefly stated of the prosecution case is that the petitioners and the applicants in the present case were being proceeded against in the Sessions Trial No.549/2013 and it was their case that the matter had been fixed for framing of charges on 3.1.2014 and without hearing to the Counsel for the petitioners the Court had proceeded to frame the charges against the petitioners. Accused Keku had filed an application dated 15.1.2014 for appointment of advocate of his choice under section 303 of the CrPC but the trial Court without considering the application and granting him the opportunity continued the framing of charges and also recorded the statement of witnesses and the petitioners also prayed for transfer of the case to another Court. Being aggrieved the petitioners filed a revision and the revisional Court had also upheld the framing of charges and hence present petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that petitioner Keku has been denied the right to defend himself and counsel submitted that his fundamental rights were effected and the entire trial is likely to be vitiated. 4. Per Contra, counsel for the respondent/State has also pointed out that the petitioner had been ably represented by counsel from the Legal Service Authority and the application was mala fide and only meant to protract the proceedings. It is not the case that the petitioner was not represented before framing of charges. Counsel rightly prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. On considering the above submissions and the impugned order, I find that the petition is without merit primarily because both the Courts below have categorically held that on 3.1.2014 all the accused petitioners were present along with their counsel namely Shri Virdendra Sharma, Shri Rohit Chaparia, Shri Vishnu Dixit and Shri Rajat Saxena were present before the Court. It is apparent that accused Keku was being represented by Shri Vishu Dixit, Advocate. Undoubtedly, after proceedings for framing charge were over an application was filed on behalf of this accused. It is apparent that accused Keku was being represented by Shri Vishu Dixit, Advocate. Undoubtedly, after proceedings for framing charge were over an application was filed on behalf of this accused. Petitioner Keku submitted that he wanted to appoint a new counsel since Vishnu Dixit, Advocate has been appointed on behalf of the Legal Services Authority, whereas counsel for the petitioners could not attend the Court work on 3.1.2014. So also merely to transfer the case on such ground was totally uncalled for. The matter was heard later on and the Court came to finding and there was no need to go back on the order already passed. The application was therefore, rejected. 6. Consequently on considering the above submissions and the order impugned, I agree with the findings of both the Courts below that the petitioners were all duly represented by their counsel and a delayed application of the present nature clearly indicated that the petitioners wanted to somehow delay or protract the proceedings on some or the other pretext. Moreover only on this ground to seek the transfer of the case would not be correct but unnecessarily casts aspersions on the Judge without any basis and is not to be allowed at any cost. The petition field by the petitioners is without merit and the same is dismissed as such.