NATABAR MAJHI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner as per provisions of Section 407 of the Cr. P. C. praying for transfer of the Sessions Case No. 15 of 2003 pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Asansol. Case of the petitioner is that he along with others are facing trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Asansol in connection with Sessions Case No. 15 of 2003 for the alleged commission of offence under

(2.) I have heard the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the learned Advocate for the State as well as the learned Advocate for the O.P./ de facto complainant. It is the admitted position that a Sessions Case is pending before the learned trial Court against the petitioner and others and in that case charge has already been framed and the matter is fixed for recording of evidence. At this stage the petitioner has come up before this Court for transferring the case from the file of the learned trial Court to any other Court situated at Asansol. Main contention of the petitioner is that on a particular date as he was sick, so he could not attend the Court and in spite of that the learned trial Judge was pleased to issue warrant of arrest against him. Due to this, the petitioner apprehends that he will not get fair Justice in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Asansol. But, simply because of the fact that the learned trial Judge was pleased to issue warrant of arrest against a particular accused, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge was biased in passing such an order. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order it is always open for him to challenge the same and in fact the petitioner actually challenged the said order before this Court. We should not forget that a trial Judge is obliged statutorily to dispose of the case as early as possible by observing the procedure laid down in the law. He is not meant for granting adjournment at the whims of the accused persons. Of course, the Court is to consider the prayer for adjournment in a judicious way. Simply because the prayer for adjournment was rejected and warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge acted in a partial way against the interest of the petitioner. It is very much within the power of the trial Judge to take effective steps for securing attendance of the accused persons as well as the witnesses for early conclusion of the trial. I find no illegality in the order, as passed by the learned trial Judge. Moreover, that chapter of issuance of warrant of arrest is now closed as this Court on earlier occasion intervened and directed the learned trial Judge to release the accused petitioner on bail on his surrender before him. Since, then the matter is pending before the learned trial Judge and he is taking steps by fixing dates for examination of the witnesses. I fall to understand as to how the petitioner could conceive that the learned trial Judge by fixing such dates has actually passed those orders in a partial way. The attitude of the accused petitioner is highly objectionable and must be condemned. If an accused is aggrieved by an order of a trial Judge and if on that basis a case is transferred from the file of the trial Judge, then the High Court will be flooded with such petitions and there is every possibility that the provisions of Section 407 of the Cr. P. C. will be misused by some unscrupulous persons which should not be allowed to be done under any circumstances. From the materials-on-record, I find no illegality in the orders passed by the learned trial Judge.

(3.) Therefore, from my above discussion I am of opinion, that there is no substance in the petition, as filed by the petitioner and I have got no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has thoroughly failed to show that a fair and impartial trial cannot be held in the Court of the learned trial Judge. As such, I find no merit in this application and in my considered opinion same should be rejected.