SUJIT GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for transfer of a Sessions trial relating to an offence punishable under Sections 302/304b/201/498a of the Indian Penal code from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, tamluk, Purba Medinipur to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, paschim Medinipur situated at Medinipur town.

(2.) MR. Sekhar Basu, learned Advocate, appearing along with Mr. Sudipto Moitra, Mr. Prabir Mitra and Mr. Amal Krishna Samanta, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted before this Court that the Court where the present trial is pending is situated far away from the place of residence of the accused persons. The distance between their place of residence and the Court where the trial is pending is about 92 kilometers and it takes about six hours for to and from journey involving huge expenses. He further submitted that all the accused persons are old man and they are suffering from various old aged diseases and one of the accused person, Juthika ghosh is a cardiac patient. According to Mr. Basu, this will also cause no inconvenience to the witnesses who are also residing at places which is nearer to the Court where they are seeking for transfer of the trial.

(3.) MR. Abhijit Auddhya, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted before this Court that none of the witnesses has any difficulty or inconvenience in attending the Court where the trial is presently pending. He further draws the attention of this Court to an order passed in connection with this case on December7, 2005. Referring to the said order, Mr. Auddhya submitted before this Court that on the prayer of these accused persons, the case was transferred to the Court of the learned additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Tamluk for disposal from tho. Court of Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur. Mr. Auddhya also draws the attention of this Court to the said order and submitted that the learned lawyer of the accused persons, i. e. , petitioners herein prayed before the Sessions Judge, purba Medinipur for transferring the case to a Sessions Court at Tamluk which would be convenient for the accused persons. Mr. Auddhya further submitted that incident occurred at Egra, Purba Medinipr where the daughter of the complainant was brutally killed. He further submitted that the occurrence took place on September 2004, but, although charge-sheet has been submitted within three months, that due to these accused persons, as yet the trial could not have been commenced except framing of charges. In this connection, Mr. Auddhya relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, reported in AIR 1979 sc 468 and referring to paragraph 2 of the said decision he submitted that assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the Court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer.