JAVED Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition moved under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the applicant/petitioner (Javed) seeks to set aside the impugned order dated 08.03.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in criminal misc. application no. 27 of 2013, whereby the application of the applicant for transfer of ST No. 176 of 2011, under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B IPC pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee to any other court of competent jurisdiction was rejected by the Sessions Judge.

(2.) A transfer application was moved before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar that Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2011 State vs. Javed under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B IPC is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee. In the course of trial, the evidence of the Investigating Officer was recorded. It was the allegation that the accused was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating Officer. Subsequently, however, the application of the accused to cross-examine the Investigating Officer was allowed on payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved against such an order imposing costs, the accused moved an application for transfer of the said Sessions Trial to any other court of competent jurisdiction. The comments were sought from the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned, who wrote to the Sessions Judge that she imposed the cost merely for the purpose of ensuring speedy disposal of the case in compliance of the directions issued by the Hon ble High Court that the crimes against women should be decided at the earliest. The accused persons were adopting dilatory tactics in disposal of the Sessions Trial concerned. She also wrote, as any other Judicial Officer, who has no personal interest in the case would have written, that she has no objection if the Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2011 is transferred from her court to some other Court.

(3.) A perusal of the order dated 16th of January, 2013, which led the accused to move for the transfer of the case to some other court indicated that, on that date, PW 5 was present in the Court and his examination-in-chief was already started. Three prosecution witnesses were already examined by then (probably on the previous dates). The trial court did not think it fit and proper to adjourn the hearing of the case. The permission to corss-examine PW 5 was, however, subsequently granted on payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. There appears to be no infirmity in the impugned order dated 8th of March, 2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar whereby the application of the accused-applicant for transfer of the case to some other court was rejected.