R M RAMACHARI Vs. M B RAMACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by one R. M. Ramachari, a resident of Mathurai, for transferring a criminal case filed by him, in the first instance, against his agent, another Ramachari, in the court of the Stationary Sub Magistrate, Amaloru subsequently transferred to the file of the First Class Joint Magistrate, Rajahmundry.

(2.) The facts are: This petitioner, Ramachari, according to himself, is a partner of a registered firm of R. M. Ramachari & Co., carrying on handloom cloth business in Mathurai. This petitioner has got a branch at Dwarapudi in East Godavari district. The accused, another Ramachari, is said to have been his agent and clerk in charge of the branch at Dwarapudi. In these circumstances, this petitioner filed a complaint against that agent before the Second Class Magistrate at Alamoru in C. C. No. 338 of 1951, for offence of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation under Sections 403 and 408, I. P. C. It is significant that this complaint relates to a matter which can be proved only by people resident in Dwarapudi and around, because I find the following list of witnesses attached to the complaint.

(3.) Before the trial could take place, and apparently for ulterior objects of his own, this complainant has suddenly found that the interests of both parties and the ends of justice require that the case should be tried at Mathurai, and he has preferred this application on grounds which can only be described as both vexatious and false. The affidavit in support states that since the offence committed by the accused happens to come also under Section 477A as a major one, a scrutiny of the entries in the account maintained is necessary for the disposal of the matter, and since the accounts and all entries therein are in Tamil only, it will be expedient in the interest ot justice that the case should be tried in a court familiar with the Tamil language. The affidavit further goes on to say that many of the witnesses in the case are residents of places round of Mathurai town and it will be convenient for the parties as well as witnesses to attend court in Mathurai instead of in a distant place. I need not point out that the first ground is a vexatious ground because, if the presiding magistrate happens to be an officer who does not know Tamil, then there is ample provision for the entries being translated into Telugu or into English with which language that presiding officer is bound to be familiar. Then, as regards the second point, I have purposely reproduced the list of witnesses to show that, far from witnesses residing in Mathurai, they are residents in Rajahmundry, Dwarapudi and Chirala and obviously, this second allegation is a thoroughly false one.