M SUDALAIKANNU PANDIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are accused 1 and 6 in case pending trial in S.C.No.10 of 2010 seek transfer thereof to any other Court.

(2.) The ground urged by Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners is that the lower Court has, upon appearance of the accused on 30.07.2010 before it informed that the accused should be present on all hearing dates failing which, it would ensure the conduct of the case by having them behind bars. On the very next hearing date and that too four days of the questioning viz., 04.08.2010, one of the accused A6, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.19201 of 2010, who is from Tirunelveli was unable to attend since he was unwell. A petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C. filed by him came to be dismissed and it is informed that such dismissal came about on the lower Court being informed of transfer petition having been moved by the 1st accused before this Court, whereupon the learned Judge had stated that the case could be conducted before any other Court if proceedings before it were not desired. In these circumstances, learned Senior counsel informs of apprehension of the petitioners that they may not get justice at the hands of the lower Court. Learned Senior counsel would inform that a real and genuine apprehension of failure of justice would suffice to make out a case for transfer and that such requisite stands met in the present case. Learned Senior counsel would refer to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Gurucharan Dass Chadha v. State of Rajasthan 1966 Crl.L.J. 1071 wherein it is observed as follows:

(3.) I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on the above submissions.