SHEKHAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OUT of the seven accused, only one above mentioned accused has come to this Court, seeking transfer of his case from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. (Room No. 24) to some other Court in the same district. The case pending against the accused is under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) THE facts relating to the transfer application are that 11.3.2008 was the date fixed before the trial court for the examination of D.W. 15, Madan Mohan Kakkar, the handwriting expert to prove the report given him. THE applicant filed an application to summon the record from the library of the Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad said to have been written by his wife, which the trial court refused with the observation that the aforenoted record was summoned pursuant to order dated 13.2.2008 passed by Hon'ble S. C. Nigam of this High Court in Crl. Misc. Application No. 1284 of 2008, Manoj Kumar v. State of U. P., but the report of the college was that the record in question was not available. THE trial court also mentioned that the case was at the stage of defence evidence for last two years in which about hundred dates were fixed and the accused have already examined 15 witnesses in their defence.

(3.) THERE is ample material on the record to show that the accused wants to delay the proceedings to the maximum possible extent. The Presiding Officer despite such attitude on the part of the accused-applicant has not cancelled the bail of the other accused in the case, in order to accelerate the disposal of the case. It is manifest that at every step, road-blocks are being put up to impede in the progress of the case, and the counsel for the accused is in the forefront of this delay compaign. The trial court should be firm and should not allow any further obstruction in the disposal of the case.