LALTA PRASAD SAXENA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Lalta Prasad Saxena under Sections 526 and 561-A, Criminal P. C., for either transferring a criminal case against him under Section 161, Penal Code, from the Court of Sri G. S. Miara, Magistrate 1st class, Uttar Pradesh to the Court of some other Magis-trate in the district of Farrakhabad or to direct Sri G. S. Misra to hold his Court in the district of Farrukhabad.

(2.) The affidavit accompanying the application shows that the applicant was employed as booking clerk in charge at Pakhna railway station in the district of Farrukhabad, that he was alleged to have committed an offence under Section 161, Penal Code on 6-7-1950, and that the police of the Special Police Establishment Branch, Lucknow, investigated the offence and submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant on 6-4-1951, in the Court of Sri G. S. Misra. It is alleged in the affidavit that the notification dated 21-1-1950, conferring powers on Sri G. S. Misra of a Magistrate of the first class to try or commit cases, investigated by the Government of India, Special Police Establishment throughout the United Provinces, was wholly illegal and did not confer any jurisdiction on him in the eye of law and that, therefore, Sri G. S. Misra had no jurisdiction to try the applicant's case. It was further alleged that the trial of the case at Lucknow amounts to an harassment of the accused who has to appear at Lucknow on every date fixed for the case, he getting Rs. 80 per month. All the defence witnesses would be from Farrukhabad district and the applicant expects to produce about ten witnesses. It is further alleged that the notification aforesaid ia an abuse of the power conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code on the State Government as this Court had been created to afford facility and advantage only to the prosecution apparently because the headquarters of the Special Police Establishment are at Lucknow, disregarding the facility or the convenience of the accused. It is alleged that the convenience of the parties requires that the case be tried in Farrukhabad district.

(3.) There is no doubt that it would be much more convenient to the accused applicant that the case be tried at Farrukhabad where ordinarily the case would have been tried as the alleged offence under Section 161, I. P. C., took place at a place within Farrukhabad district. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to suggest that trial at Farrukhabad would not be convenient to the accused. Trial there will avoid his visits to Lucknow on the dates fixed for hearing and on some of the dates on which the case might have to be adjourned for any good reason. He will have to incur more expenses in summoning witnesses to Lucknow from Farrukbabad. Such witnesses may also feel it inconvenient to go to Lucknow. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to suggest any particular reason which makes it very desirable and necessary that the case should be tried at Lucknow. It appears to me that what is alleged in the affidavit filed with this application is a possible reason for the order of the Government that cases, investigated by the Government of India. Special Police Establishment throughout the United Provinces, should be tried by the Special Magistrate, the reason being that this establishment is located at Lucknow and it might have been considered inconvenient for the limited staff to go to or produce evidence at other places. To my mind this possible inconvenience to the investigating staff does not outweigh the inconvenience to which an accused from another district is subject when he has to undertake his defence in another district. Farrukhabad is not very far from Lucknow, but I can imagine an accused of Dehra Dun or Deoria or other places distant from Lucknow being tried at Lucknow in view of this notification.