PRAN NATH HARBANS LAL Vs. STATE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 526, Criminal Procedure Code, for the transfer of the case State v. Pran Nath and others from the Court of Shri K.N. Joshi, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. Several grounds have been taken in the application, but I do not consider it necessary to refer to them in detail. In the comments dated 24.2.1968 submitted by the learned Magistrate, he has stated in paragraph 22 that the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings in the case which is evident from the fact that it was instituted in the Court on 30.8.1966 and it is over one year and five months that the Courts were not able to frame charges in the case for such a long period. This, according to the learned Magistrate, is due to the delaying tactics on the part of the accused. I have been taken through the record of the case relating to the adjournments, by the counsel for the petitioner and I am constrained to observe that the accused -petitioner can on no reasonable hypothesis be blamed for the delay of one year and five months in the disposal of the case as represented by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) IN paragraph 8 of the comments of the learned Magistrate, he has put the blame on the accused for not arguing the application, dated 29.3.1967 before Shri T.R. Kalia, Magistrate 1st Class, for more than eight months. Now, on 29.3.1967, it appears from the summary of the proceedings that the case was transferred to a new Court and the transferee Court adjourned it to 25.4.1967 for framing charges. On that date, the accused were present and their counsel wanted to address arguments but the Prosecuting Sub -Inspector was absent and the case had to be adjourned to 1.5.1967. On that date, the accused presented an application of which. notice was given to the P.S.I. and the case was adjourned to 12.5.1967, on which date, it seems, that the counsel for the accused could not attend the Court and the case was adjourned to 16.5.1967, on which date Pran Nath accused expressed his intention to apply for the transfer of the case. He was required to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 500 to the effect that he would get the case transferred within a fortnight.

(3.) NOW , Shri Safeer has submitted that apart from the fact that the proceedings before the trial Court on 17.1.1968 show unjustified bias in the mind of the learned Magistrate, his comments clearly betray a strong prejudice on the part of the learned Magistrate against the accused persons and this should by itself be held to he sufficient for transferring the case to some other Court in the larger interest of justice. The submission seems to me to possess merit. Up to 17.1.1968, it is quite clear that the various Presiding Officers of the trial Court and the prosecuting agency had been dealing with the case in a manner which can scarcely be described to be in accordance with the instructions contained in the High Court Rules and Orders. Criminal cases, it must never be forgotten, should be proceeded with from day to day so far as practicable and disposed of quickly and adjournments should he as short as the circumstances permit. Inordinate delay in recording evidence in criminal cases must, from the very nature of things, serve to defeat the cause of justice.