LAWS(ALL)-2008-1-142

MEGHRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On January 30, 2008
MEGHRAJ SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. A. Zaidi, J. The facts relating to this transfer application are that the applicant is the complainant in Sessions Trial No. 466 of 2002 (State v. Anil and others) under section 302 I. P. C. pending before Additional Sessions Judge/f. T. C. /court No. 1, Aligarh 9. 1. 2008 was fixed in the trial for arguments. The Bar Association passed a resolution that due to demise of Har Prasad Upadhayay, Advocate, all the Advocates (on 9. 1. 2008) will take part in the funeral ceremony and will, therefore, desist from working in the Courts, the Courts be closed after lunch. Copy of the resolution is Annexure-1 on the file.

(2.) THE complainant's grouse is that despite the resolution, the Trial Judge heard the arguments overlooking the application for adjournment filed by the complainant on the ground that a private Counsel engaged by him in the case was ill and Judge posted it for arguments on 10. 1. 2008. on 9. 1. 2008 while going out of the Court room, he heard the accused exclaiming that money and relations have immense power and that is why they succeeded in getting the case heard by the Judge, despite the Bar resolution and adjournment application and that they will be acquitted. THE complainant filed an application informing all about it to the Trialcourt on 10. 1. 2008 praying to stall the proceedings and send the record to the Sessions Judge and the Judge posted trial for 19. 1. 2008. For all these reasons, the complainant has reason to believe that justice may not be done to him and that the Sessions Judge had declined to transfer the trial to any other Court on his application.

(3.) THE ground that the private Counsel was ill on the said date cannot provide any ground for complainant because the Counsel for the State was present and in any case arguments from the accused were being heard, which were continued on the next date and about 10 days thereafter. THE absence of the private Counsel on the particular date would not, therefore, have made any difference. In the circumstances, the application cannot succeed and is accordingly rejected. .