PARIMAL H TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Service of rule is waived by learned APP Mr. HL Jani for respondent No. 1-State and Dr. Pankaj Shrimali, respondent No. 2, party-in-person.

(2.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner-original accused under Sec. 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the following prayers on the grounds stated in the memo of petition:

(3.) AFFIDAVIT-in-reply has been filed by respondent No. 2 original complainant denying the contentions, averments and allegations made in the petition. It is contended that the facts would clearly reveal that the petitioner had prolonged all the proceedings on one pretext or another for which details have been stated in the affidavit- in-reply. It is contended that the petitioner tried to delay the proceedings which have been objected by respondent No. 2. It is contended that the documents are well within the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore it cannot be said that he has not been given sufficient time by the Court. It is therefore contended that the present application for transfer of the case/proceedings which has been filed on the ground that the trial court has not granted time is not correct. It is contended that it could not have been a ground for seeking transfer under sec. 407 of CrPC. It is contended that refusing to grant adjournments on a frivolous ground cannot be a ground for transfer and the apprehension that the accused will not get a fair and impartial trial is not just and proper ground. Reliance is placed on judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the judgment reported in (2000) 6 SCC 204 in the case of Abdulnazar Madani v. State of Tamilnadu and anr.