KAMAL SATYARTHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered against the petitioners at PS Chhaynsa District Faridabad vide FIR No. 61 dated 4.4.2000. In this case, Mohinder Singh- respondent No. 2 is the decoy witness. As per him, on 31.3.2000, he visited the hospital for the treatment of his son Deepak. Dr. Kamal Satyarthi- petitioner who was Medical Officer of that Hospital demanded a sum of Rs. 400/- as bribe. As per Mohinder Singh, he did not want to pay him the bribe. He contacted the Vigilance Bureau at Palwal and got the trap laid on him.

(2.) THROUGH this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner-accused has prayed for the transfer of this case from Faridabad Court to any other Court outside Faridabad. It is settled that Mohinder Singh-respondent No. 2 is the real uncle of Mr. Ajit Singh who is practising Advocate at District Courts Faridabad. It is stated that petitioner may not be able to have a fair trial at Faridabad on account of the pressure being exerted by the members of Faridabad Bar who are persuading the other Advocates not to appear to him. They are under the influence of Ajit Singh. Sarvshri T. Gaur and P.C. Sharma, Advocates, have put in applications for the withdrawal of their vakalatnamas. It is stated that he is unable to engage counsel of his choice at Faridabad because of the pressure of Ajit Singh Advocate. The learned AAG, Haryana opposes this prayer of the petitioner stating that he can engage any other lawyer if the lawyers previously engaged by him have withdrawn.

(3.) LEARNED AAG, Haryana submits that it cannot be believed that Ajit Singh is so powerful and influential that he is not allowing any Advocate is come forward and accept the brief of the petitioner. In support of this submission, learned AAG, Haryana has drawn my attention to Ranjit Singh and another v. Popat Rambhaji Sonavane and others, 1983(1) RCR(Crl.) 164 (SC) : AIR 1983 SC 292.