M MOHAN SHET Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking transfer of the complaint filed by the second respondent herein before the J.M.F.C. Bhatkal, North Kanara District, to any other Magistrate Court of either Shimoga District or Bangalore District. A few facts and circumstances which led the petitioners to approach this Court under Section 407, Cr.P.C. are as follows :

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they are the residents of Bangalore city. Respondent-2 filed a private complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C., before the J.M.F.C. Bhatkal against these petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 500, I.P.C. alleging that the petitioners have made a defamatory statement by publishing an article in a newspaper called "Daivajna Vani" which relates to the affairs of religious trust, namely, "Daivajna Brahmin Guru Peetha Samathapana Trust, Bangalore". On the allegations made in the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatkal, took cognizance and then ordered to issue process to the petitioners herein in P.C. No. 12 of 1989 which later came to be numbered as C.C. No. 1777 of 1989. Pursuant to the process issued, it is clear from the order sheet maintained by the J.M.F.C. Bhatkal that A. 4 appeared and later he had engaged an Advocate by name Sri S.S. Kolkebail, a member of Kundapur Bar. These petitioners filed a Criminal Revision Petition in Cr. R.P. 343/89 alleging that in the absence of any prima facie case the Magistrate has chosen to issue process to the petitioners. The said Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed by this Court on 26-2-1991.

(3.) On 22-7-1991 petitioners have filed this application under Section 407, Cr.P.C., within 25 days from the date of their earlier case filed in Cr.R.P. 343/89 which was rejected on 26-2-1991, with a request to transfer the case, namely, CC No. 1777-89 on the file of the J.M.F.C. Bhatkal to some other Magistrate Courts of either Shimoga District or Bangalore District for the following reasons. (1) If the complaint is to be tried at Bhatkal Court itself, the petitioners apprehend that they may not get fair and impartial enquiry; (2) In spite, of their best efforts they were unable to get the services of the Advocates as Bhatkal Bar consisted of only three Advocates. Out of three, one is already appearing for respondents and other two are neither active practitioner nor accepted petitioners' brief to appear on their behalf in the said Court. Out of three, the Advocate who is appearing for respondents is none other than the son of the President of the Trust in question. In spite of such a failure to secure services of an Advocate, the trial Court is in hurry to proceed with the case. Thus, it is expedient in the interest of justice to transfer the case from Bhatkal to some other Court as mentioned earlier.