RAM BILAS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants being accused in Sessions Trial No. 131 of 1982 State v. Swami Rangacharya and others (for short the Trial) under Ss. 307/337, I.P.C. pending in the Court of Sri. Nepal Singh, Special Judge Saharanpur, have filed present application for transfer of aforesaid trial to some other Court of competent jurisdiction, under Section 407, Cr. P.C. (for short the Code).

(2.) Factual metrics can be stated succinctly. The trial was pending since 1982. The prosecution evidence was concluded on 8-6-88 on 14-6-88 was the date fixed for recording statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code. The case was adjourned on several dates on the applications of the accused. The statement of the accused could be recorded on 6-9-88. Thereafter on several dates adjournments were taken for furnishing defence evidence which could be furnished on 14-10-1988. The arguments appear to have been heard in part on 2-1-1989. Thereafter 30-1-89 was the date fixed for arguments. On that date learned counsel for the accused could not appear on account of illness hence the adjournment was granted for the next date i.e. 31-1-89 and it was made clear in the order allowing adjournment that no further adjournment would be granted but on that date i.e. 31-1-89 an adjournment application was filed on the ground of illness of the learned counsel for the applicants and the same was rejected and 6-2-89 was fixed for arguments. Before that date a transfer application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge and the same was rejected by an order dt. 29-3-1989, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the affidavit filed in support of the present transfer application. Against that order instant transfer application has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants urged that as the case was fixed on 30-1-89 but learned counsel for the applicants before trial court could not appear and just the next day i.e. on 31-1-89, subsequent date was fixed for arguments and on that date learned counsel for the applicants was ill hence adjournment application was made. Instead of allowing the same, learned Special Judge fixed 6-2-89 for judgement without hearing learned counsel for the applicants. This indicates that Sri. Nepal Singh learned Special Judge was based against the applicants who genuinely apprehended that a fair and impartial trial would not be possible in his Court. The adjournment application has incorrectly been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. A number of cases were cited on behalf of applicants but it is not necessary to refer all of them. The relevant and important cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants are these. Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425, G.X. Francis v. Banke Bihari Singh, AIR 1958 SC 309 and Mansoor Madaru v. The State, AIR 1963 All 477.