SAMUEL THOMAS Vs. UNNIKRISHNARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under S.407 of the Cr.P.C. to transfer C.C. 73 of 1992, C.C 92 of 1992 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Punalur, S.T. 215 of 1992 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ranni, S.T. 2 of 1992 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Palakkad, S.T. 2824 of 1991 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Irinjalakuda, S.T. 247 of 1992, S.T.279 of 1992, S.T.296 of 1992, C.C.3 of 1992,C.C. 88 of 1992, S.T.966 of 1992,S.T.747of 1992 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chalakudy, S.T. 144 of 1991, S.T. 206 of 1991, S.T. 209 of 1992, S.T. 926 of 1991 and S.T. 227 of 1992 of the Court of . the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Trichur to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. Petitioner is an accused in all these cases. Respondents complainants filed the different cases before the Courts under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Case of the respondents in their respective cases is that the cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured on presentation and thus he committed the offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) Under S.407 of the Cr.P.C. this Court - Can transfer cases and appeals pending before the subordinate Courts on the following grounds:

(3.) Petitioner does not have a case that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any of the Courts where cases are pending against him. Nor has he a case that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise in those cases. Then, the remaining question to be considered is as to whether the transfer sought by the petitioner is for the general convenience of the parties or the witnesses or as expedient for the ends of justice. Learned advocates appearing for the respondents pointed out that each and every complaint relate to separate transactions and that there is nothing common among them to be decided by transferring all cases to one particular court. As all the cases were instituted against the petitioner and other accused persons and as they have arisen out of different transactions and as the documentary evidence or the oral evidence would not be common in all these cases, there is absolutely no justification in seeking the transfer.