ANIMA GHOSE Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant application under section 407 read with section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner who happened to be the wife of the deceased Dr. Jayanta Kumar Ghosh seeks transfer of Sessions Serial No. 75 of 2006, now pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, at Kandi, Murshidabad, arising out of Burwan Police Station Case no. 29 of 2006, under section 302/364/120b/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 25/27/35 of the Arms Act. At the time of final hearing of this application in spite of repeated calls none appeared on behalf of the accused/opposite party Nos. 2 to 8. The affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the records. However, Mr. Swapan Kumar mullick, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State was duly present in Court.

(2.) MR. Joymalya Bagchi, the learned Advocate appearing with Ms. Rupa bandyopadhyay submitted before this Court that the petitioner reasonably apprehending that no fair and impartial trial is expected from the particular court where the aforesaid trial is now pending, moved this application for transfer inasmuch as the learned Judge had expressed undue sympathy in favour of the accused persons and also conducted himself in a biased manner. He further submitted that the learned Trial Judge has not correctly recorded the evidence of the Investigating Officer and also refused to record in the evidence the very vital facts deposed by the Investigating Officer of the case. The learned judge on his own accord suggested the Defence Lawyer what he should ask the Investigating Officer of the case in his cross-examination with reference to the evidence of the learned Magistrate P. W. 29 who recorded the confessional statement of the accused persons. He further submitted that the learned Judge in the capacity of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, kandi, Murshidabad conducted total eight trials, out of which in seven trials he delivered judgements granting acquittal to the accused persons and all the judgements are of perfunctory nature and speak of complete non-application of judicial mind. Mr. Bagchi further submitted that the particular learned Judge as the Additional Sessions Judge, In-charge, Kandi, Murshidabad granted bail to three accused persons in connection with Khargram Police Station Case no. 53 of 2007 under section 363/366/372a/120b of the Indian Penal Code and a division Bench of this Hon"ble High Court by an order passed in connection with C. R. M. No. 10138 of 2007 set aside the said order of granting bail and passed an adverse comments against him. It is further submitted that the particular Learned Judge as Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - I, tamluk, Purba Midinipur by a judgement delivered in connection with Sessions trial No. 4 (1) 2005 acquitted six accused persons of a charge under section 447/ 323/325/379/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code and this Hon'ble High Court set aside the said order of acquittal and remanded back the case for re-trial. Accordingly, Mr. Bagchi submitted for the sake of a fair and impartial trial it would be expedient in the interest of justice the aforesaid trial be transferred from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Kandi, murshidabad to any other Sessions Court in the same Sessions Division.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Swapan Kumar Mullick vehemently opposed the prayer of transfer made on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Mullick submitted that the petitioner except making some bald allegations has not been able to show any iota of materials suggesting that the evidence of the Investigating Officer was recorded incorrectly. There is also no contemporaneous record that the learned Judge suggested the Defence Lawyer as to how the Investigating Officer should be cross-examined with reference to evidence of the P. W. 29. He further submitted although it is alleged that while the learned Magistrate was examined as P. W. 29 the learned Trial Judge suggested the Defence Counsel on what point the Investigating Officer to be cross-examined with reference to the evidence of P. W. 29 but at no earlier point of time any objection was brought into the records. According to Mr. Mullick that the other grounds on which the petitioner is seeking transfer of the case are wholly perverse and without any substance and the same do not justify transfer of the Sessions Trial in question.