DEVRAJ Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is for transfer of Sessions Case. The applicants are accused in Sessions Case No.38/2012 pending before Additional Sessions Judge -2, Ambajogai. The counsel for applicants has argued that, in the Sessions Case, the evidence started on 16.3.2013 and thereafter few witnesses were examined. According to him, before 1.2.2014 for about 4 dates the accused along with Advocate remained present, but witnesses did not attend. However, on 1.2.2014, the Advocate was not present and witness P.W.5 remained present. The accused made application, that the Advocate was not available, but no order was passed on application Exh.69. According to learned counsel, by error, the application filed on 1.2.2014 mentioned date as 1.2.2014, which error is reflected in the endorsement of the Judge also. The counsel submitted that, on that day, P.W.5 was examined but he could not be cross - examined. The matter was adjourned to 6.2.2014. The accused No.1 made application Exh. 68 mentioning that his marriage is on 5.2.2014 and so matter may not be kept on that date i.e.6.2.2014 as after marriage, for 4 -5 days he will not be able to go out of house. The application, however, was rejected as it was filed at 3.00 p.m. It is agreed that on 6.2.2014 accused No.1 remained absent and Advocate was also not present and applications Exhibit 70 for exemption; and Exhibit 71 for time to cross examine were filed. The matter was posted to 11.2.2014. The learned counsel submitted that the accused had then filed Misc. Criminal Application No.20/2014 for transfer under Section 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Principal Sessions Judge on 10.2.2014. On 11.2.2014, applications Exhibits 72 and 75 were filed for adjournment, but the Court, vide order dated 11.2.2014, rejected the applications. On that day, deposition of P.W.6 was recorded. The transfer application came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on 20.2.2014 observing that the roznama shows that the matter was pending before the Sessions Court since 9.5.2012 and within 9 months the accused had never raised grievance to get the matter transferred, but at the stage of evidence of P.W.5 the accused were claiming that they would not get justice. The Additional Sessions Judge observed that the grounds were baseless and the contentions deserve to be rejected.

(2.) LEARNED A.P.P. submitted that only because the application to change date was rejected is no reason to transfer the matter from the Sessions Judge. According to learned A.P.P. by now almost 7 witnesses have been examined. Learned A.P.P. tendered copy of roznama. According to learned A.P.P. there is no substance in the transfer application and the same deserves to be rejected.

(3.) THIS para itself shows that general and vague allegations were made that the Court itself was taking much interest in favour of prosecution on open dias. There were no particulars about it. Filing such application, the applicants on the next date of 11.2.2014 moved the Court to adjourn the matter claiming that they have filed the transfer application. It appears from the order of the trial Court that the trial Court was shown the transfer application and the trial Court observed in para 3 of its order below Exh.72 and 75 that there are false allegations against him in the application only to pressurize him and prevent him to exercise his jurisdiction and powers to decide the case. I find that there was no justifiable cause for applicants to make an issue out of what was the incident of 1.2.2014 for the applicants to move the transfer application and make such allegations. It is not appropriate that only because on particular day the Court is unable to accommodate, to go out and make allegations. Baseless apprehensions cannot be reason to claim transfer. I do not find that there is any substance in the transfer application. The same deserves to be rejected with costs.