TEKCHAND GULABCHAND JAIN Vs. MOHIDDIM SHAMSUDDIN MUJAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a jeweller from Kolhapur and according to him, certain silver ingots were given to respondent No.1 for preparing ornaments from the same,while returning ornaments some quantity of silver is alleged to be removed and respondent No.1 avoided to deliver to the petitioner and therefore, a complaint has been filed alleging offence of criminal breach of trust under section 406 of the I.P.C. against the Respondent No.1 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Kolhapur,which is numbered as Criminal case No.45 of 1995.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.1 has also filed a case against the present petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, F.C.,Ichalkaranji, for offences under sections 323,342,403,504 and 506 of the I.P.C and the same is numbered as Criminal Case No. 277 of 1994.

(3.) I have heard Shri Mundargi for the petitioner and Shri Patil for respondent No.1 and also Shri Nalavade,APP for the State. Shri Mundargi submitted that the petitioner has to go a long way of 25 kms to attend criminal case filed by respondent No.1 while, if the case is transfered from Ichalkaranji and Kolhapur no hardship would be caused to respondent No.1 as he stays at Hupari and Ichalkaranji to Kolhapur are at equal distance from Hupari. Shri Patil challenges this position and submits that Hupari is nearby Ichalkaranji and there are city buses plying between two towns and one can go to Ichalkaranji on a bicycle, but for going to Kolhapur, one has to catch S.T.bus,as distance is 25 kms. Shri Patil also submitted that Respondent No.1 is working as labourer while petitioner is a jeweller and respondent No.1 cannot afford to spend for attending the dates at Kolhapur, if the case in question is transferred to Kolhapur. In other words, it is submitted that question of convenience though raised by the petitioner is not genuine one and, therefore, it is not necessary to transfer the case.