Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1070 (ALL)

Akash Sharma v. State of U. P.

2016-03-28

RANJANA PANDYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Amit Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondent. 2. By means of this transfer application, the applicant has prayed that Special Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 355 of 2014, under sections 376, 384, 354-A IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act and 66 Ka and 66 Ga of I.T. Act, police station Naubasta, district Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Kanpur Nagar may be transferred to Kanpur Dehat or any nearest district. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the trial Judge without considering the facts of the case and ignoring the factual aspect has framed the charges against the accused. It has further been contended that ignoring the orders of this Court, charges under section 3/4 POCSO Act have also been framed. The trial court did not declare the accused as juvenile. The trial court is in hurry and the transfer application is liable to be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has stated that against rejection of the application for declaring the accused as juvenile, a criminal revision was preferred before this Court, which was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this plea of juvenility was raised at the initial stage and at the initial stage revision was preferred. Subsequently, a finding came from this Court that at the time of commission of offence, the victim was not a minor, hence provisions of POCSO Act would not apply. 6. Perusal of the order of this Court passed in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 31927 of 2015 dated 29.10.2015 reveals that this Court has specifically mentioned that the observations of this Court are only limited for examining the validity of the impugned order and would not prejudice the court below in arriving at its own conclusion. Thus, it was left open for the trial court to arrive at its own conclusion. 7. While deciding the transfer application, I do not think it to touch the merits of the case. The reputation of the Officer concerned i.e. Smt. Vani Ranjan Agrawal is good. She carries a good reputation at Kanpur Nagar. 8. There is no ground to allow the transfer application. 7. While deciding the transfer application, I do not think it to touch the merits of the case. The reputation of the Officer concerned i.e. Smt. Vani Ranjan Agrawal is good. She carries a good reputation at Kanpur Nagar. 8. There is no ground to allow the transfer application. 9. The transfer application has no force and is accordingly rejected.