RAJ KISHORE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Raj Kishore has presented an application under section 526, Criminal Procedure Code . for transfer of two connected cases. State Vs. Raj Kishore and two others, under sections 332/353/186/224/225/34, Indian Penal Code .; and. State Vs. Raj Kishore under section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, from the Court of Shri K. N. Joshi, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, to some other competent Court.

(2.) In answer to the petitioner's application for transfer made in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Magistrate had observed in his comments that the accused had always been adopting delaying tactics whenever witnesses were present. This has also been objected to by the petitioner's learned counsel.

(3.) In his comments, the learned Magistrate has stated that both the cases in question were fixed for 28-3-1968 for the appearance of the accused, but they were not present and the cases had to be adjourned to 8-4-1968. At about 3-30 P.M., the counsel for the accused persons appeared in Court and stated that the accused persons were waiting outside the court room No. 30, in which court-room the cases were being heard earlier and that the accused had no knowledge of the transfer of the cases to the present Court. This, according to the learned counsel, was the reason for their non-appearance. Thereafter, non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were cancelled and the cases fixed for 8-4-1968 for prosecution evidence. It. appears from the comments that on 30-3-1968, the counsel for the a.ccused had appeared and applied for adjournment of the case to 10-4-1968 and this prayer was granted. Inadvertently, however, the order made on that date could not be placed on the file by the Reader, as a result whereof the case was heard on 8-4-1968. As the accused did not appear on 8-4-1968, warrants were issued against them for 18-4-1968. On 10-4-1968, an application was made by the accused and the warrants were cancelled. From verification, it appeared that no warrants had actually been issued by the Court, nor were the accused arrested by anybody. The case was adjourned to 18-4-1968. On that date again, the accused were not present. The prosecution witnesses Rani Sarup, Rashid, Ved Parkash, A.S.I, and Amar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, were present, it was in these circumstances that the warrants were ordered to issue against the accused on 18-4-1968 and the case was adjourned to 27-4-1968. At about I P.M. on 18-4-1968 the counsel for the accused appeared and presented an application praying for cancellation of the warrants issued on 10-4-1968. The counsel was informed on the order dated 10-4-1968 when the case was fixed for 18-4-1968. In spite of this intentional absence on the part of the accused persons, the Court admitted the accused persons to bail on their furnishing a bond amounting to Rs. 5,000.00 with one surety in the like amount. The accused were absent from 10 A.M. to 1 P.M. on 18-4-1968 and it was only when the prosecution witnesses had gone away that the accused persons appeared in Court and made an application for cancellation of the warrants. The averments about the accused filling an application for transfer and the Court requiring a personal bond of Rs. 200.00 have been admitted.