CHETAN PATIDAR, S/O MULCHAND PATIDAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH MAHILA POLICE STATION, BHOPAL, DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Crimial P.C. being aggrieved by an order dated 18.09.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhopal under Section 408 of the Crimial P.C. in MJC-R/1410/2015.

(2.) The facts of the case necessary to dispose of this revision are briefly narrated below:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Presiding Judge of the Court has framed charges, recorded the evidence of both the parties, heard the final arguments at length and fixed the case for judgment on 09.09.2015. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed the transfer application making omnibus allegations against the Presiding Judge. He further submitted that the Presiding Judge conducted the trial of the sessions case from the beginning to the end and during the trial the Presiding Judge noted the demeanour of witnesses and thus the Presiding Judge is fully well versed with all the aspects of the sessions case. As such, the Sessions Judge ought to have not transferred the sessions case at the fag end just on the ground that the learned Presiding Judge of the Court had consented the transfer of the sessions case. Hence, the impugned order is bad in law and which is liable to be set aside. In support of the arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions rendered in the matters of Madan Lal and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (2012) CRI.L.J. 1430 and Gurcharan Dass Chadha Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1966) SCC 1418.