AMARENORA NATH CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the de facto complainant has prayed for transfer of the sessions case No. 6(5) of 2000 arising out of G. R. Case No. 742 of 1997 under Sections 498A/304B/ 302 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the 2nd Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura on the ground that most of the vital witnesses are residents of 24-Parganas (South), that the de facto complainant is an old man and that difficulties would be faced by the witnesses to attend the Bankura Court from 24-Parganas (South) as they have no residential accomodation at Bankura. Along with these grounds another ground is taken that there is apprehension of being mis-handled by known miscreants of Bankura as the accused person is an employee there.

(2.) It appears from the materials on record that the marriage between the daughter of the de facto complainant and the opposite party No. 2/ accused was solemnized within the police station Gosaba in the district of 24-Parganas (South), that the families of both the parties are residents of 24-Parganas (South), that after the marriage the daughter Aparna went with the accused Tapes to the working place of the husband at Bankura. that she died there as a result of which F.I.R. was lodged at Bankura Sadar police station and a case was started. The case was investigated and a charge-sheet was filed against the husband Shri Tapas Chatterjee. Subsequently charge was also framed against the accused person and on getting the summons to appear as the prosecution witness, the de facto complainant filed this application praying for transfer.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the provisions of Seetion 407(1)(c) contended that an order under this Section is expedient for the ends of justice and also for general convenience of the parties as well as the witness, in support of this contention reference was made to a Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1976. Cr.L.J. 1252 (Public Prosecutor vs. D. Venkataranga Reddy). In this case for the convenience of the parties and the witnesses the High Court thought it fit to transfer the ease from one sessions division to another.