GANESH DASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case is being tried in the Court of Shri A. C. Kher, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi for an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He seeks the transfer of that case to the file of some other Magistrate of competent jurisdiction on the ground that he has reasonable apprehension that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had at the hands of the said learned Magistrate. In support of his application he alleges that the complainant in the case against him is the real brother of one Chaudhry 0m Parkash, Deputy Superintendent of Police, currently posted at Kamla Market Delhi and chat the learned Magistrate is on friendly terms with the said Chaudhry 0m Parkash as he was sometime back connected with the Kamla Market Police Station in his capacity as Ilaqa Magistrate. He further alleges that the learned Magistrate has been putting pressure on him to enter into a compromise with the complainant and that since he has been resisting that pressure the learned Magistrate has started harassing him in various ways. In his application he has mentioned five different instances that occurred on 6th September 1966 13th September 1966, 15th September 1966, 26th September 1966 and 10th October 1966 from which he wants me to deduce that the learned Magistrate has been passing illegal orders as a result of the bias against him.

(2.) The learned Magistrate has, in the comments submitted by him to this Court, denied the petitioner's all egations regarding pressure and bias etc. He has also explained the circumstances under which the bailbonds of the petitioner were forefeited and nonbailable warrants were issued on 6th September 1966 which is one of the so-called illegal orders by which the petitioner feels aggrieved. The learned Magistrate's explanation with regard to the other instances also denies the suggestion of any bias in his mind or the orders having been motivated by any considerations other than those permitted by law.

(3.) The petitioner's allegations and the explantion of the learned Magistrate were duly considered by the learned Sessions Judge and the application for transfer was rejected by his order dated the 1st December 1966. Ordinarily, therefore, I would have been reluctant to accede to the request made by the petitioner for transfer of the case. But I find that on 10th October 1966 when the petitioner informed - the learned Magistrate about his intention to make an application for transfer of the case from his file, the learned Magistrate recorded the following order :-