ANUPAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. This is an applica tion under Section 407, Cr. P. C. for transfer of Session Trial No. 222 of 1992, under Sections 394, 302, 307, I. P. C. , pending before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, from that Court to any other adjoining district. There was a fur ther prayer that till disposal of the applica tion further proceedings in the trial should be stayed. The application was presented on 25-5-97 and Hon'ble Mr. O. P. Garg, J. , of this High Court recorded an interim order staying further proceedings in the trial. The complainant appeared by him self as he was not made a party. He filed an application for vacation of the stay order and had also. filed a counter-affidavit. Together with the applicant, the State and the complainant were also heard in the matter. In the course of these proceedings an affidavit by Sri D. K. Rajdan, Advocate, of Meerut has also been brought on record.

(2.) THE applicant stated in the affidavit annexed to his application that the presid ing officer of the Court was prejudiced and biased against him. THE applicant was in custody since last 5 1/2 years. Several bail applications were moved by the applicant in the High Court which were dismissed. THE trial, however, could not be concluded even after 51 years. THE complainant hap pens to be an Executive Engineer and in that capacity was an influential person in the locality. He has engaged one Sri Ram Avtar Gupta as a private Counsel and Sri Gupta happens to be his relation as well. This Sri Gupta has been the President of the Bar Association, Ghaziabad, and he had a good number of supporters in the Bar Association and under his personal influence no competent Counsel of Ghaziabad dared to take the brief of the applicant. Finding no Counsel at Ghaziabad the applicant engaged Sri D. K. Upadhyaya, Advocate, from Bulandshahr but he too faced threat and pressure from the lawyers at Ghaziabad and he withdrew from defence. Subsequently, Sri D. K. Rajdan, Advocate who is an eminent criminal lawyer of district Meerut was engaged as a defence Counsel but he too met with a similar treatment and he too was threatened and humiliated by the com plainant and his henchman.

(3.) THE affidavit of Sri Daya Kishan Razdan dated 13-10-97 indicates that he was engaged in March, 1997, to conduct the defence ins. T. No. 222 of 1992 pending before the Illrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. When Sri Rajdan had cross-examined P. W. 2 and-a favourable answer was obtained from the witness, the Counsel for the complainant had loudly intervened and gave sufficient hint to the witness to twist his reply. THE Counsel for the complainant habitually and repeatedly intervened in such manner. Sri Rajdan was allegedly threatened in a open court by the two counsel for the complainant as well as by the complainant and they created such an uproar that the deponent had to ask for protection from the Court only to get a smile from the learned Judge. An applica tion was filed indicating that he was unable 10 appear in the case. THE fact of threat was denied by Sri R. A. Gupta. In the applica tion moved by Sri Rajdan, THEre is no in dication that Shri Gupta had intervened during cross- examination and had inter fered in the recording of the deposition or that the Court had tolerated only with smile. THE application simply spoke of threat given to Sri Rajdan.