VIDYA SAGAR SOOD Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by Shri Vidya Sagar Sood for transfer of his case, i. e,, C, S. No. 7 -R/10/95/88 titled Vidya Sagar v. State of H, P. and others; which is pending in the Court of the learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur to some other Court of District Judge in Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State -respondent No. 1, as well as Shri R. L. Sood for respondents No, 2 and 3 have been heard at length. The comments of the Presiding Officer of the Court of District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur which were tailed for have also been perused. The main ground for transferring the case as stated in the transfer petition and as also urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned District Judge has already expressed an opinion on the merits of the case, and therefore, there is a clear apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that justice will not be done to him by that Court. It has been vehemently argued that the learned District Judge had started discussing the merits of the case in open Court with the learned Counsel representing the plaintiff -petitioner there as well as the District Attorney who is in -charge of the case on behalf of the defendants/respondents, However, a perusal of the comments of the learned District Judge, Kinnaur indicates otherwise.

(3.) For facility of reference, paras No. (ii) and (iii) of the comments of t he learned District Judge are reproduced here below : "(ii) That the contents of para 2 of the application are admitted to the extent that the case was fixed for the evidence of the defendants on 10 -4 -1996 before this court and rest of the contents are denied as false. The case was taken up for the recording of evidence on 10 -4 -1996 and the plaintiff has produced Sh. R. M. Gupta, learned Counsel to conduct his case. The learned District Attorney has prayed time to examine his witnesses as he was busy in other State cases. Moreover, the State witnesses were not present and they have made request through District Attorney that they will be reaching the Court by 12 noon. It is however, admitted that there was a discussion about the Inner Line Permit and its procedure which was discussed with the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the District Attorney, There was no argument by the learned District Attorney as alleged except that the District Attorney has stated that his request for Inner -Line Permit was rejected on the basis of the report submitted by Superintendent of Police, Kangra. It is absolutely wrong that the Court has agreed with the argument and expressed the opinion that plaintiff has no case at all against the Government. There was no question of comparing the applicant with the Punjab terrorist. There was no discussion about the character antecedent of the applicant as it was not involved in the Civil Suit. It is absolutely wrong that the Court has uttered anything about the High Court order or stated that the High Court can pass any order but I have to see what I have to do. Rest of the para is also denied for want of knowledge. It is submitted that when the case was taken up for recording the evidence of the defendants witness the applicant has moved two applications for the transfer of the case on 10 -4 -1996. One application was filed in Hindi wherein the applicant has only mentioned that he want to get this case transferred to some other Court and request to stay the proceedings. Thereafter another application in English was filed by the applicant on the same day supported by an affidavit wherein he has only mentioned that he has lost confidence in the Court and has apprehension that he may not get fair trial and prayed time to get the case transferred Both the applications are on the court file. From the perusal of both the applications there are no allegations as mentioned by the applicant in his application for transfer. (iii) That the contents of para 3 of the application are admitted to the extent that the applicant has filed two applications for the transfer of the case and rest of the contents are absolutely false. The proceedings in the case was stayed immediately when he moved the applications as is clear from the order -sheet. The petitioner was given 15 days time to get necessary stay order from the competent Court. It is submitted that the allegations contained in the para are afterthought and has only been levelled to get the case transferred."