HIRA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned Counsel for the applicants and find that there is no force in this transfer application,

(2.) The main ground taken is that the learned magistrate, Kumari Bimla Goel, in whose court the case is pending, first passed an order exempting Shrimati Parvati applicant no. 2 from personal attendance in court during the trial of the case but, subsequently, cancelled that order on an application presented by the counsel for the complainant and this raises an apprehension in the minds of both the applicants that they would not receive proper justice in her court. Learned Counsel, in this connection, has drawn my attention to an order of my learned brother Gurtu, J. passed on the 3rd of September, 1952, in this very case when the applicants had come up to this Court for transfer of this very case from another court. Gurtu, J. in that order, held that the circumstances in which the order cancelling the exemption granted was passed, might have raised an apprehension in the minds of the applicants that they would not receive justice in that case. He further found another ground that a non-bailable warrant had been unjustifiably issued by the magistrate. On these two grounds, the case was transferred from the court of that magistrate.

(3.) It is to be noticed that Gurtu, J. did not arrive at any clear finding that the cancellation of the exemption did actually raise a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the applicants. He only went to the extent of expressing his opinion that it "may raise an apprehension". It is not necessary for me to consider whether, in the circumstances in which the case came up before Gurtu, J., an apprehension did or did not arise that Justice would not be meted out to the applicants in that court. I am only concerned with the circumstances in which the applicants have come up in this second application for transfer. In the affidavit filed in support of this transfer application, the allegation is that, after Kumari Bimla Goel had granted exemption to Shrimati Parvati applicant no. 2 from personal attendance in court, an application was moved by counsel for the complainant indicating that the presence of applicant no, 2 was necessary for a proper trial of the case on the date on which the prosecution witnesses were to be examined. That such a need can exist is clear. It might have been necessary for the prosecution to examine witnesses about the identity of applicant no. 2.