MAMNOON Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of Sessions Trial No. 1162 of 2009 (Case Crime No. 264 of 2004) pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Muzaffar Nagar to the Court of equal jurisdiction of any other adjacent District. Counsel for applicants contended that earlier Trial reached to the stage of hearing in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9 when District Judge transferred it to Court No. 7 whereagainst applicants came to this Court in Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 261 of 2013 and this Court disposed of the same vide judgment dated 9.5.2014 directing that the Trial shall continue in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 9. However, it is stated in para 18 of the affidavit that in the meantime Presiding Officer of Court No. 9 stood changed and thereafter Trial was transferred from Court No. 9 to Court No. 7 by District Judge by order dated 21.7.2014. Now this application has been filed alleging that District Administration, in order to get a particular result in the Trial, is pressurizing the Presiding Officer and therefore the said Trial has been transferred. Para 19 and 20 of the affidavit in support of this Transfer Application read as under:

(2.) From a bare perusal of above, it is clear that the allegations are very vague in nature. Learned counsel for applicants could not tell at all as to how and in what manner the abovenamed politicians or the District Administration can build up pressure over the Presiding Officer and how the District Administration can get the Trial decided in a particular way. The allegations levelled are totally unsubstantiated.

(3.) The allegations have been made in para 18 and 19 as if the Judicial Officers are amenable to the approach of District Administration or the political persons, may be Member of Parliament. This assumption without substantiating the same with relevant material is nothing but per se cause a serious aspersion on the independence and objective of Indian judiciary and, in particular, the Members of judicial service. This Court is under constitutional obligation to protect subordinate Judiciary from such unfounded baseless aspersions otherwise it may shake confidence of public in the independent Judiciary. No one can be permitted to make reckless allegations against the members of judicial service so as to obtain a particular result and this Court must take serious view in such matters. It is also admitted by learned counsel for applicants that the District Judge as also the Presiding Officer of the Court in which the case has been transferred, both are now different Officers and not the earlier one when the earlier transfer order was passed which stood nullified by this Court.