YESHODA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is one of the accused in S.C. No. 73 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 r/w 120(b) IPC. THE case was subsequently, transferred to the file of Fast Track Court V, Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai-1. THE petitioner, to question the correctness and legality of the transfer, ordered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, and intending to get reason for such order passed, preferred certain applications and the same was declined. THE present petition has been filed before this court to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Principal Sessions Judge, may pass an administrative orders transferring the pending case in his file to some other courts namely Additional Sessions or Fast Track Court in the same Sessions Division. But in the case on hand, sighting the letter ROC No. 2448-A/09/F1 dated 23.06.2009 issued by the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, such an order has been passed and under such circumstances, it cannot be claimed as an administrative order of the Principal Sessions Judge. The representation made by the wife of the deceased to the Government was forwarded to the High Court and in turn reached the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge. Therefore, it appears that transfer has been effected at the request of a party to the proceedings, in which case, notice should have been ordered to the opposite party and by Judicial order, a decision would have been taken one way or other. In the case on hand, such practice has not been adopted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge. Only under such circumstances, the petitioner filed a petition before this court seeking for a direction.

(3.) A letter from the Registrar General, High Court, Chennai has been issued to the learned Principal Sessions Judge on a some communication from the Government based on a representation made by the wife of the deceased. On perusal of the contemporaneous records, it appears that transfer was effected on receipt of the letter from the High Court. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, acted on the basis of the letter. Therefore, transfer was effected on the basis of the request of the party to the proceedings. Hence, notice would have been issued to the opposite party and proceedings would have been conducted and thereafter a conclusion would have been reached one way or other. It is appropriate to look into the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in AIR 1996 Suprement Court 2759 Naib Singh Vs. State of Haryana, decided in the similar circumstances, wherein it is held as follows: