DAULATRAO DASHRATH DHONDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking transfer of Sessions Case No. 141 of 1997 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Ahmednagar to any other Court for trial in accordance with law.

(2.) THE petitioner is complainant in the State prosecution lodged against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to this petition for offence under sections 498-A and 304-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was the daughter of the petitioner who had committed suicide in the matrimonial house. On the complaint lodged by the petitioner the father of the deceased, prosecution was initiated against her husband and his parents i. e. respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The incident in question had taken place on 1-3-1997. The Sessions Case was scheduled to commence before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on 8-1-2002. Naturally, the petitioner being the complainant had to be examined first. It appears that inspite of his being unwell, the petitioner had himself gone to the Court and filed written application for adjournment of the trial on the ground of his illness for a period of two weeks. He had also filed medical certificate about his illness. The learned Judge accommodated the petitioner for a day and adjourned the matter to 9-1-2002 and wanted to examine other witnesses on that day. The petitioner was anxious that the trial should not have commenced on that day and the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have examined other witnesses also. According to the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed on the application of the petitioner that he would accommodate the petitioner by giving him time, but he can record the evidence of other miscellaneous witnesses. The words used by the learned Additional Sessions Judge were, "chillar Sakshidar" and further observed that there is nothing special in the case and the case can be disposed of in two days.

(3.) THE above observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge were taken literally and seriously by the petitioner and he carried an impression that the learned Judge had already made up his mind about the merits of the case and, therefore, apprehended that justice would not be done to him or to the cause of the prosecution in the matter. He, therefore, told the Court orally that because of the words used by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he wanted to make application for transfer of his case before the learned Sessions Judge. He, thereafter, immediately made application on the same day before the learned District and Sessions Judge for transfer under section 409 of Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, proceeded to record the deposition of one witness on the same day. On the following day i. e. 9-1-2002, the petitioner made application for stay of the trial of the aforesaid prosecution pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Simultaneously, the petitioner filed another application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge pointing out that he had filed transfer application before the learned Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, stayed the further proceedings in the matter which was being tried by him. The application for transfer made before the learned Sessions Judge was disposed of by the order dated 24-1-2002 which is impugned in this petition.