M GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions have been filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C for withdrawing the calendar cases pending on the file of the XI Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court (special judge for CBI cases), Chennai from the file of the said court and transfer the same to any other competent court for trial and disposal in accordance with law. ALL the criminal cases concerned in these petitions were originally pending before the VIII Additional Sessions Judge (special judge for CBI cases). They were subsequently transferred to the file of the XI Additional Sessions Judge (special judge for CBI cases) pursuant to an order of the government made in G.O.Ms.No.1504 Home (Courts-II) Department 24.10.2007 transferring all bank fraud cases to the said court. The petitioners in each case and the other accused persons, who have also been arrayed as respondents 2 to 6 in Crl.O.P.No.12726/2009, respondents 2 to 8 in Crl.O.P.No.12753/2009, respondents 2 to 5 in Crl.O.P.No.12754/2009, respondents 2 to 5 in Crl.O.P.No.12755, respondents 2 to 7 in Crl.O.P.No.12756, respondents 2 to 11 in Crl.O.P.No.12758, respondents 2 to 19 in Crl.O.P.No.12759, respondents 2 to 14 in Crl.O.P.No.12760, respondents 2 to 9 in Crl.O.P.No.12761, respondents 2 to 31 in Crl.O.P.No.12762, respondents 2 to 4 in Crl.O.P.No.12763, respondents 2 to 12 in Crl.O.P.No.12764, respondents 2 to 20 in Crl.O.P.No.12765, respondents 2 to 16 in Crl.O.P.No.12790, respondents 2 to 8 in Crl.O.P.No.12791, respondents 2 to 4 in Crl.O.P.No.12796, respondents 2 to 15 in Crl.O.P.No.12848, respondents 2 to 6 in Crl.O.P.No.12725, respondents 2 to 8 in Crl.O.P.No.12757, respondents 2 to 31 in Crl.O.P.No.12766, respondents 2 to 5 in Crl.O.P.No.12767, respondents 2 to 19 in Crl.O.P.No.12769, respondents 2 to 12 in Crl.O.P.No.12770, respondents 2 to 16 in Crl.O.P.No.12787, respondents 2 to 3 in Crl.O.P.No.12788, respondents 2 to 16 in Crl.O.P.No.12789, respondents 2 to 11 in Crl.O.P.No.12792, respondents 2 to 8 in Crl.O.P.No.12793, respondents 2 to 7 in Crl.O.P.No.12794, respondents 2 to 8 in Crl.O.P.No.12795, respondents 2 to 29 in Crl.O.P.No.13344, respondents 2 to 29 in Crl.O.P.No.13371 and respondents 2 to 15 in Crl.O.P.No.13407 are being prosecuted for alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 3(1)(b)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) THE petitioners have come forward with the present petitions contending that the trial judge is biased against them, as the same was revealed by the fact that in a similar case i.e. C.C.No.66/2000 in which they were prosecuted for similar offences, each one of the petitioners were convicted with seven years rigorous imprisonment for each one of the offences with which they stood charged and were imposed a total fine of Rs.80,00,000/- (at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- on each charge).

(3.) THE further contention of the petitioners is that, it is practically impossible for them to instruct their counsel for instantaneous cross-examination of witnesses in the absence of a scheme for the examination of witnesses, when they were not in a position to know who are all the witnesses to be examined on a particular day of hearing, as the defence counsel has to deal with a number of voluminous documents that under such circumstances alone they were forced to seek time for cross-examination or an order deferring cross-examination of such witnesses for the time being and that on all such occasions, the learned trial judge used to record 'NIL' or 'No cross' under the caption cross-examination.