KOTHA SATHAIAH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/accused of C.C. No. 417 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Manchirial filed the transfer petition to transfer the said calendar case from the file of that Court to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Laxettipet of the same District or any other nearest Court in the District by showing the State-represented by the Public Prosecutor as 1st respondent and Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. of the complainant of the said case as 2nd respondent. In fact, the petitioner went unsuccessful in his transfer petition M.P.No.188 of 2015 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad wide order dated 02.05.2015 thereby he knocked the doors of this Court for the self-same purpose impugning the correctness of the order of the Sessions Judge also.

(2.) The affidavit in support of the transfer petition filed by the petitioner is that he is a practicing advocate aged about 49 years at Manchirial for the last 25 years and was President of the Bar Association for two terms earlier and elected very recently in May, 2015 and was Chairman of Agricultural Market Committee, Laxettipet, that the calendar case filed was for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against him by the 2nd respondent/complainant, Kapil Chits Private Limited for the amount due of the four chit fund amount due being highest bidder of the instalments due of the chit for Rs. 5.00 lakhs payable of Rs. 10,000/- per month for 50 months saying having failed to pay the E.M.Is issued the subject cheque No. 316556 dated 10.06.2013 that was when presented returned dishonoured from the account inoperative and dormant and his defence is he never issued the cheque and it is a false claim and the 2nd respondent-chit fund company cause filled the blanks of the cheque issued by him at a distant point of time and the provisions of the N.I.Act have no application for no legally enforceable debt for which the cheque shown issued. It is regarding the liability and maintainability of the case now nothing to do with. Coming to the transfer petition averments of him that there was a call given by Advocates Joint Action Committee of all Bar Associations in the State of Telangana to abstain Court work to fulfil the demand for separate High Court for the State of Telangana and the Honourable Judges of all Courts from genuineness of the cause were not taking up the cases and not passing any adverse orders, but for the presiding officer of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Manchirial in several cases by passing remarks against local advocates by insulting or humiliating the advocates before clients or provoking the clients against advocates and some criminal cases registered against advocates viz., Crime No. 57 and 58 of 2015 and the petitioner herein is one of the accused in both cases in which the Superintendent of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Manchirial was the complainant so far as Crime No. 58 of 2015 concerned on the ground that the advocates locked the Court hall and obstructed the Court proceedings, that the presiding officer of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Manchirial thereby developed ill feelings towards advocates and started harassing or insulting them in front of clients during the strike period and later even by making comments in loose language. In fact, these are the common allegations against the presiding officer if at all to transfer all cases not for a particular case. If not any grievance to be considered by the High Court on administrative side, if at all to transfer the officer and thereby no way sustainable, so far as the case on hand in seeking to transfer concerned those cannot be a ground.

(3.) The other averments were that the opportunity of cross-examination of P.W-1 by accused herein, the C.C. No. 370 of 2013 (sic.340 of 2013) renumbered as C.C. No. 417 of 2015 was denied and the matter by closure of evidence of the complainant on 24.03.2015 posted for examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and it is therefrom the petitioner approached the Sessions Court by filing transfer petition M.P.No.188 of 2015 to transfer the case to Laxettipet Court or any other nearest Court in the District and however, the learned Sessions Judge without discussing actual reasons dismissed the same by granting relief for reopen of P.W-1's evidence with permission to cross-examine P.W-1 by accused (petitioner) and in directing the trial Court to dispose of the matter within one month from the date of receipt of the said order. It is needless to say the closure of the cross-examination of P.W-1 for not done by accused was even without argument from the transfer application grievance, the learned Sessions Judge ordered for opportunity by reopening and in directing the trial Court to permit cross-examination by accused. Undisputedly it was done.