Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3452 (MAD)

Covai Balu @ Bala Krishnan v. State

2015-10-16

R.MALA

body2015
ORDER : The petitioner has come forward with this petition to withdraw the Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.31 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai and transfer the same to any other competent court in other districts of Tamil Nadu, stating that the second respondent's/de-facto complainant's son is an Advocate against which he is unable to proceed the case in the said criminal appeal. Hence, he prays for transfer of the case. 2. Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that after the case in C.C.No.23 of 2012 being taken on file, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sivagangai, disposed of the same within the same camp and at that time no untoward incident had happened and the apprehension of the petitioner is uncalled for and the present petition has been filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings and he prays for dismissal. 3. Considering the rival submissions and also on perusal of the typed set of papers, it is seen that the petitioner who is an accused has been facing the criminal trial in C.C.No.23 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sivagangai, for the offence under Section 420 IPC, and after trial he was convicted against which he preferred an appeal in C.A.No.31 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. It is brought to the notice of this Court that both the trial Court and the appellate Court are situated in the same camp. Even, at the time of trial in C.C.No.23 of 2012, the second respondent's/de-facto complainant's son was an Advocate, and no allegation of mishandle against the said Advocate has been reported. Therefore, there is force in the contention raised by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) that only with a view to drag on the proceedings, this application is filed. Hence, this Court is of the view that the reason assigned by the petitioner for transfer lacks merits acceptance. 4. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Since the appeal is of the year 2013, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, is directed to dispose of the C.A.No.31 of 2013 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Since the appeal is of the year 2013, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, is directed to dispose of the C.A.No.31 of 2013 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.