KAJAL PODDAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Somesh Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sushil Shukla Advocate for the respondent No. 2 who has filed counter -affidavit, and learned A.G.A. for the State. Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners states that he does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit since legal question is to be decided.

(2.) AS agreed between the parties, final arguments heard by the Counsels of the respective parties.

(3.) SRI Somesh Khare has emphasized that since on the previous occasion the Court was vacant, the summons could not be issued and after file was called for from the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate which was received on 7 -9 -2006 straight away non -bailable warrants were issued on the next date fixed i.e. 20 -9 -2006. The entire order sheet has been brought on record in support of the contention that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar took cognizance on 16 -6 - 2006 thereafter on three dates i.e. 10 -7 -2006, 11 -8 -2006 and 31 -8 -2006 the Court was vacant. On 6 -9 -2006 the record of the case was sent to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate which was received on 7 -9 -2006. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed that the record be put up on the next date fixed which was 20 -9 - 2006 and the transferee Court on the first date itself issued non -bailable warrant which was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 228 of 2006. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate could not have transferred the case from the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to his own Court without any reason. Emphasis is on Section 412 Cr.P.C. which is quoted below :