AMARBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has questioned the legality of order dated 24.05.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda by which he had transferred the case registered vide FIR No.15 dated 13.04.2010, under Sections 302, 307 & 34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Phul, District Bathinda titled as 'State Vs. Amarvir Singh' and cross case lodged vide DDR No.18 dated 13.04.2010, under Sections 307, 452, 148, 149 IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Phul, District Bathinda titled as 'State Vs. Harbans Singh' from the Court of Shri Sukhdev Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda to the Court of Shri D.S.Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda during the pendency of the trial contrary to Section 409(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short "Cr.P.C."] and the administrative instructions of this Court (Annexure P-12).

(2.) Admittedly, the aforesaid cases were pending in the Court of Shri S.K.Sachdeva, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda but on withdrawal of the said Court, the aforesaid cases were transferred to the Court of Shri Sukhdev Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 03.04.2011 from where it has now been transferred to the Court of Shri D.S.Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the challan was presented on 19.07.2010 and the charge was framed on 27.09.2010, whereas the aforesaid cases were assigned to the Court of Shri Sukhdev Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 03.04.2011 on withdrawal of the Court of Shri S.K.Sachdeva, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda and have been further transferred to the Court of Shri D.S.Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 24.05.2011. He has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer the case to any other Additional Sessions Judge after the commencement of the trial in view of Section 409(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and since Shri D.S.Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda was not having two years' experience at the relevant time, therefore, in terms of the letter No.12201-Gaz.II(2)/IX.C.18 dated 11.04.2008 (Annexure P-12), the trial of the case registered under Section 302 IPC could not have been assigned to him.