ROOP LAL ALIAS ROOPA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner made an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panipat, for holding an enquiry under Section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and lodging a complaint against various persons named in the application including two practising lawyers of Panipat for offences under Sections 120-D, 465, 466, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C. THE Sub-Divisional Magistrate ultimately dismissed the application. Appeal against the said order was filed before the Sessions Judge. It was still pending when a separate district of Panipat was created and under orders of this Court, on the administrative side, all cases relating to area of newly created district of panipat were transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. THE difficulty being faced by the petitioner is that the proceedings being against two local practicing Advocates, the other Advocates are not willing to accept the brief of the petitioner. THE matter was previously pending at Karnal where the petitioner had engaged a counsel and in case the appeal is transferred to Sessions Judge, Karnal, the petitioner, who is a retired police constable, will be spared the expenses of engaging a new counsel. After hearing the learned counsel for both parties, it is directed that the appeal in question, Roop Lal v. State of Haryana, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, shall stand transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge, Karnal,for disposal according to law. It will be open to the Sessions Judge, Kamal, to keep the appeal with himself or make it over to any of the Additional Sessions Judges at Karnal. THE record shall be sent to the transferee Court. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the Court of Sessions Judge, Karnal on 6-3-199 1. Petition allowed.