Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3742 (ALL)

Nishu Kumar Kesari v. State of U. P.

2015-12-01

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I

body2015
JUDGMENT Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. Heard Sri K.K. Srivastava, Sri H.R. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for transferring the proceedings of Case No.2460 of 2011, Balaji Oil Vs. Nishu Kumar, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Collectorganj, District Kanpur Nagar to another district, on the ground that the case is pending for a considerable period of time since no case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is made out, for the reason that as per purchase order, goods say edible oil for a sum of Rs.1,33,375 was supplied by M/s Balaji Oil Products to the applicant. 3. However, learned counsel for the applicant has not alleged anything adverse against the Presiding Officer. Only this much has been clarified that learned counsel for the complainant is unnecessarily availing adjournment on several dates due to which the matter has been kept pending. In fact the entire amount of payment has already been made over to Balaji Oil Products as per sale & purchase transaction between the parties. 4. Learned AGA has submitted that no specific allegation has been made against the Presiding Officer. Whatsoever trouble lies with the applicant appears to be availing adjournment by one of the parties in this case for which appropriate remedy can be sought very much by making prayer in that regard before the court concerned. It is not a fit case for transfer of the case merely on the asking that some adjournment by one of the parties has been availed because of which proceedings have been delayed. Considered the submissions. No specific allegation whatsoever has been made against the Presiding Officer. It would not be in the fitness of things to transfer the case straightaway from one district to another district. However, in case any inconvenience is felt by the applicant in regard to disposal of the case, the same may be brought before the court concerned. In case the same is brought before the court concerned, it is bounden duty of the court concerned to decide the case on merits on the ground of expediency at the earliest. The grounds so urged for transfer of the case from one district to another district are not sustainable. With the aforesaid direction, the instant application is disposed of.