PRITISH NANDY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is an application by the two accused persons for transfer of a criminal case from Rourkela to Cuttack for trial.

(2.) Charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners for the offences under sections 292 and 293 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of publication of materials in an issue of the illustrated Weekly of India on the basis of an information lodged by Advocate of Rourkela In Plant Site Police Station, Petitioners moved this Court for exercise of inherent power to quash the cognizance taken. After hearing, cognizance under section 293, I.P.C. held to be an abuse of the process of the Court and was quashed. Petitioner assailed the order unsuccessfully in the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the case was posted to 19-1-1988 for recording evidence. The three Advocate witnesses, i.e. informant (P.W. 1), another Advocate (P.W. 2) and the Associate Public Prosecutor (P.W. 3), have been examined in chief. At this stage the application has been filed Invoking the power of this Court under section 407, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Twenty witnesses have been named in the charge sheet in support of the prosecution case. Besides the informant (P.W.1), there are two other Advocates as witnesses. One of them is P. W. 3 who happens to be the Associate Public Prosecutor in the Court of the Sub-divisional judicial Magistrate where the prosecution is pending and another is an Advocate claimed to be of eminence at Rourkela (P.W.2). Five of the witnesses are from Bombay and the rest are of Rourkela. To conduct the prosecution, State Government has appointed one of its Additional Government Advocates of this Court to be the Special Public Prosecutor who appeared on 19-1-1988. Petitioners have engaged two senior Advocates of this Court to defend them. In respect of the self, same publication, a complaint has been filed in Cuttack Court in which cognizance has not yet been taken and the matter is pending enquiry. Petitioner No.1 is to come from Bombay and petitioner No. 2 is to come from Calcutta to face the trial. On account of the nature of duty performed by them, they are normally to move from place to place very often. Petitioner No. 11 is also required to leave India regularly in discharge of his duty.