Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 891 (ALL)

Radha Charan v. State of U. P.

2014-03-14

ANIL KUMAR SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar Sharma,J.: - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the applicant has produced before the Court certified copy of the complete order sheet pertaining to S.T. No. 782/2008, which is taken on record. 3. The transfer of the case has been sought on the ground that on 15.02.2014 an application for adjournment was filed by the counsel for the applicant, which was allowed by the court. However, in the open court the Presiding Officer has expressed his opinion to convict the accused. 4. Perusal of the above order sheet shows that since 28.02.2012 the case is being fixed for arguments. On 31.05.2013 the additional statements of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded by Sri Anil Kumar Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Mathura. He also heard arguments and after ensuring compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. he fixed 18.06.2013 for judgment. However, the judgment was not delivered on this date and the case was adjourned for re-arguments on certain points noted in the order dated 18.06.2013. It appears that the Presiding Officer of the Court was changed and the successor of Sri Gupta also heard arguments up to 27.11.2013 but neither he could conclude arguments nor judgment was delivered. The order sheet further reveals that Sri A.K. Gupta was again posted as Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Mathura and he heard arguments on 03.01.2014 but the counsel for the applicant did not argue the case and the case was adjourned on four dates up to 11.02.2014 and on 15.02.2014 an application was filed on behalf of the accused to engage another counsel in place of Sri Uma Kant Chaturvedi, Advocate. On 22.02.2014 Transfer Application No. 9 of 2014 was filed before Sessions Judge, which was dismissed on 06.03.2014. 5. The above history of the case show that judgment in the case could not be delivered by Sri A. K. Gupta on 18.06.2013 and he posted the case for re-arguments. Ere that on 31.05.2013 additional statements of the accused were recorded by him under section 313 Cr.P.C. while the case was being fixed for arguments since 28.02.2012. Thus, the fact remains that Sri A.K. Gupta could not deliver the judgment in the case and his successor could also not conclude the arguments. Sri Gupta has again taken over as Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Mathura. Thus, the fact remains that Sri A.K. Gupta could not deliver the judgment in the case and his successor could also not conclude the arguments. Sri Gupta has again taken over as Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Mathura. Although the ground of transfer taken in the transfer application does not inspire confidence, but due to the above history of the case there may be reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of the accused that they may not get fair and impartial trial at the hands of Sri Gupta, who has earlier dealt with the case for quite some time. Sometimes, transfer of case from one court to the other, act as blessings in disguise because the concerned Presiding Officer is then saved from unwarranted complaints' at the hands of disgruntled litigant. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as also the history of the case, it is desirable that case be recalled from the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Mathura and made over to Sessions Judge, Mathura for disposal according to law. 6. In view of the above, the transfer application is allowed and S.T. No. 782 of 2008, State vs. Vijendra Singh and others, under section 302 IPC, P.S. Barsana is recalled and transferred to the court of Sessions Judge, Mathura for expeditious disposal according to law preferably within two months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Let copy of this order be sent to the court concerned within a week for compliance.