RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROCEEDINGS under Section 145 of the Criminal P. C. were pending in the Court of Shri N. L. Kakkar, S. D. M. Mehrauli. After the conclusion of the evidence and at the at age of hearing the final arguments an application was made by Ram Rakha Mal Respondents No. 2 under Section 528 of the Code to the Additional District Magistrate for transfer of the case to some other Magistrate on the ground that the trial of the proceedings was being delayed in the Court of shri Kakkar. By order dated June 16, 1964, Shri S. C. Pandey, Additional District Magistrate, transferred the case under Section 145, Criminal P. C. from the Court of Shri N. L. Kakkar to that of Shri S. D. Arya S. D. M. Nizam-ud-din, without issuing any notice of the transfer application to Ram Prashad petitioner. The solitary ground on which the order for transfer was passed is couched in the following words in the order under revision: On a perusal of the record of the proceedings I find that though they were instituted more than 10 months ago, no Anal decision has be far been made by the learned S. D. M. In the case of this nature particularly where agriculturist's land is involved as the subject-matter of the dispute it is imperative that proceedings are concluded as expeditiously as possible.

(2.) IT is somewhat strange that though the proceedings under Section 145 had reached the stage of final arguments in the Court of the S. D. M. Mehrauli, they were transferred to another Court simply in order to expedite them, an object which has been totally defeated by the transfer proceedings.

(3.) NOT satisfied with the order of the Additional District Magistrate D/. 16. 6. 1964 Ram Prashad went up to the Court of Session in revision and prayed for the said order being set aside. Shri P. P. R. Sewhney, Sessions Judge, Delhi, has on 25. 3-1965 recommended for the setting aside of the order under revision on the ground that the said order was passed without notice to the petitioner. Setting aside of the order under revision has also been recommended by the learned Sessions Judge, on the additional ground that the solitary reason of delay for which the case was transferred from one S. D. M. to the other by the Additional District Magistrate on the complaint of one of the parties was not a good ground for transfer of the proceedings in the circumstances of this case.