Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 4124 (ALL)

Lalta Prasad v. State of U. P.

2015-12-22

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2015
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. The power filed by Shri Yogesh Srivastava, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 and the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant, today in the Court, are taken on record. 2. This application has been moved by the applicant seeking the quashing of order dated 15.12.2015 passed by Session Judge, Firozabad whereby Transfer Application No.332 of 2015 (Lalta Prasad vs. State of U.P. and others) filed by the applicant has been rejected and also seeking the transfer of the proceedings of Sessions Trial No.381 of 2007 (State vs. Rohit and others) Case Crime No.45 of 2003, u/s 302, 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station-Khairgarh, District-Firozabad as well as Sessions Trial No.612 of 2012 (State vs. Rajhans) Case Crime No.46 of 2003, u/s 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station-Khairgarh, District-Firozabad from the court of Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.1 to any other sessions court of District Firozabad. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant Shri Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 Shri Yogesh Srivastava and learned A.G.A. 4. Record has been perused. 5. The prime submission of the counsel for applicant seeking the transfer of sessions trial is that at the time of rejecting the transfer application moved on behalf of the applicant it was observed in the order dated 15.12.2015 that the defence side was in habit of moving transfer applications and earlier also a transfer application was moved on his behalf. Further submission is that this observation is against the facts and record of the case because the earlier transfer application was actually moved on behalf of the complainant and not the accused and when that transfer application was allowed by the court below it was thereafter that the accused had filed the revision with regard to the same. But subsequently Presiding Officer himself got transferred and that issue became infructuous. Further submission is that it cannot be gauged as to what extent this observation or this wrong impression of the court has prejudiced his mind and therefore the order dated 15.12.2015 whereby the transfer application moved on behalf of the accused was rejected, should be deemed to have been vitiated and should not be allowed to stand and the case be transferred. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and perused the record in the light of the same. 7. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and perused the record in the light of the same. 7. It is true that this observation has been made by the court below while rejecting the transfer application and which is a wrong impression of the court but the perusal of the entire order reveals that this observation made at the tail-end of the order is only a fractional part of the entire order while the main grounds for disallowing the application moved on behalf of the accused are entirely different. It has been observed by the court below that the main allegations made by the accused was that when he visited the court on a particular date he found the opposite party expressing that the Presiding Officer has granted assurance about a favourable decision to him. But the perusal of the record would indicate that the date on which such a claim was being made was never the date fixed in the case and therefore the court found that there was no occasion for the parties to be there in the court and there was no occasion for the complainant to have visited the court or to have given such kind of expression. The court has given a detailed order considering each and every date when the case was fixed for argument, when the parties were heard, how the proceedings took place in the trial and how the two dates mentioned by the accused side which are of prime importance were themselves wrong assertions and it was after looking into the entire gamut of facts that this application moved on behalf of the accused was rejected. The remaining facts as have been taken into account by the trial court and which have been elaborated upon in the order dated 15.12.2015 are such which apparently on the face of record appear abundantly sufficient to reject the transfer application moved on behalf of the accused and on the analysis and reasoning adopted by the trial court it cannot be said that any order other than the order passed by the court below could have been passed. After perusing the entire factual situation and particularly the dates fixed in the matter the assertion made on behalf of the accused about his presence or the complainant's presence in the court, this court is of the considered view that these facts are sufficient to reject the prayer of the applicant which seems to have been based on not only wrong facts but on highly improbable facts also. Ordinarily if a party in a given case entered into any such kind of clandestine collusive relationship with some presiding officer, it sounds highly incredible and difficult to accept that the party would be giving an open declaration about the same and that too in the court premises itself and again also in such a manner that the opposite party should also hear about it. 8. Submission of the counsel for the complainant seems on sound footing that had the application been rejected only on the ground that the court below wrongly observed or found the accused to be in the habit of moving transfer applications, this Court could have certainly come to his rescue but that is not the sole ground and the main ground of rejection are different and are many in number. Complainant's counsel has also emphasized that today itself the trial has been fixed for delivery of judgment. This fact has also been fairly admitted by the counsel appearing for the applicant. 9. In view of the above, this application stands dismissed.