PRADIPKUMAR KANTILAL RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner - original applicant - original revisionist to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mehsana dated 08.12.2010 in Criminal Revision Application Nos.793/2010 and 797/2010, by which the applicant had requested the learned Sessions Judge to transfer Criminal Revision Application Nos.137/2010 and 152/2010 from the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions, Mehsana.

(2.) That the petitioner herein - original applicant had submitted/filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.908/2010 in the Court of 2nd JMFC, Mehsana for getting a search warrant under Sections 97 and 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as his daughter Ronak was alleged to have been seduced by respondent No.2 herein and alleged to be kept in illegal confinement. It appears that petitioner's daughter Ronak was produced before the learned 2nd JMFC, Mehsana on execution of the search warrant on 26.10.2010 and it was directed that the said Ronak be sent to Bhagini Samaj at Patan for her safety and security. It appears that respondent No.2 herein submitted an application before the learned JMFC to set aside the order by which the girl Ronak was directed to be sent to Bhagini Samaj at Patan as he wanted to prefer the Revision Application before the Revisional Court and the learned JMFC stayed the said order of sending the girl Ronak to Bhagini Samaj at Patan for the interim period of limitation i.e. 90 days for the purpose of filing the Criminal Revision Application. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of stay, petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No.137/2010 and one another Criminal Revision Application No.152/2010 arising out of the said order was also preferred and both the aforesaid Criminal Revision Applications were placed for hearing before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom the aforesaid two Criminal Revision Applications were placed for hearing, proper language was not used by him and looking to his conduct and not using proper language, petitioner felt that he will not get substantial justice and therefore, the petitioner through his Advocate submitted an application on administrative side before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Mehsana to transfer the aforesaid two Criminal Revision Application Nos.137/2010 and 152/2010 to any other Court and the said application came to be dismissed/rejected by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Mehsana by impugned order dated 08.12.2010 on the ground that the said application is not maintainable as the same is not moved by the alleged affected person; the same is without verification and the alleged conduct of the concerned Judge is not supported by the affidavit. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mehsana in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner to transfer the aforesaid two Criminal Revision Applications to any other Court from the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, which was submitted on administrative side, has preferred the present Special Criminal Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Shri J.T. Trivedi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has materially erred in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner on the technical ground. It is submitted that as such when the application was submitted to transfer the aforesaid Criminal Revision Applications on administrative side, neither there was any verification required nor the same was required to be supported by an affidavit.