LIYAKAT B SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is made under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. for transfer of the trial in Special Case No.18 of 2000 pending before the Special Judge Shri S.P. Kukday to any other Special Judge of the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. I have perused the application and gone through the order of the learned Special Judge dated 11/12/2000 and heard Mr. Mundargi.

(2.) IN my view no case is made out for transfer of the case. The misunderstanding seems to have started from the time the Deputy Secretary attached to the Law and Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra wrongly conveyed to the Special Judge that the High Court had directed the trial to be expedited in the case of this petitioner though there was no such direction from this Court. It seems ultimately concerned Deputy Secretary filed an affidavit before the Special Judge and apologised for wrong statement made before the Court. It appears that the petitioner was unwell and, therefore, he wanted some time to engage competent lawyer and instruct him fully in the matter before the trial commenced against him. Petitioner was a Police Inspector and is facing charges of corruption in the said case. When the adjournment was sought on behalf of the Petitioner, the Special Judge suspected the statement that he was unwell and had directed the constable to check the record of the JJ hospital and the learned Judge issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner which ultimately came to be cancelled as the prosecuting agency could not controvert the say of the petitioner that he was to undergo angiography in the JJ hospital, it appears that the learned Special Judge had some misunderstanding and doubted the bona fides of the petitioner, when it was represented to him that he was not keeping well. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that although the matters even eight years old are pending in that Court, the learned judge has shown unusual and unwarranted anxiety and haste in pressurising the petitioner-accused to face the trial by commencing the trial in this case which is of the year 1998 when the petitioner was not keeping well and much older matters were pending before him.

(3.) THERE is no doubt that the Judge has discretion to expedite the trial of matter pending in his Court. Normally in the absence of special reasons the Court should not go out of its way to expedite the trial of a matter to the inconvenience of a party particularly when much older matters are waiting for trial before it. It seems that even the Government had changed its stand in the case of this petitioner on the earlier occasion the Government had issued directions for reinstatement of this petitioner.However, later on that order was withdrawn and wrong statement was made before the Special Judge that the High Court had directed expedition of trial for which ultimately the Deputy Secretary had to apologise by filing affidavit. Probably the preceding events have given rise to some misunderstanding in the mind of the petitioner which made him apprehensive and consequently the present application came to be filed for transfer.