PREM KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Raju Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. R.B. Roy 'Raman', learned A.P.P. for the State. The present application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 1.12.2009 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur, in Sessions Trial no. 1089/04/Tr. No. 278/09 (arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 682/97) by which the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the incident for which the trial is going on relates to the alleged assault on an Additional District & Sessions Judge who was at that time posted at Bhagalpur as well as the incident of high-handedness and assault which is alleged to have taken place in the campus of civil courts at Bhagalpur. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to a Judicial Officer of the Civil Court at Bhagalpur being the alleged victim as well as the local Bar being involved, it would be appropriate that the trial is held anywhere outside the judgeship of Bhagalpur. Learned counsel submits that the principle "no one should be the judge in his own cause" is applicable in the present case inasmuch as it was the Registrar of the Civil Courts who had lodged the case which resulted in the trial in question. He further submits that because of the Bar also being involved, the atmosphere is not conducive for the petitioners for a fair trial at Bhagalpur.

(2.) Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, opposes the present application and submits that the application for transfer has been filed at a much belated stage since the examination of prosecution witnesses has already been concluded and the defence has also examined most of its witnesses. In that view of the matter, he submits that no reasonable or tenable grounds are available to ask for transfer of the case. He further submits that the very fact that a petition under Section 479 of the Code was filed before the District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, the obvious import is that the petitioners wanted transfer from the court in which the trial was going on to another court and there it was absolutely not the stand of the petitioners that the case may be tried outside the judgeship of Bhagalpur. He further submits that the apprehension of the petitioners is only a ploy to delay the trial, and is misconceived for the reason that wherever the case is transferred, there will be a judicial officer who shall try the case and the other party, i.e., the complainant/informant shall be represented in the trial. He also points out a vital aspect of the matter being the fact that the petitioners have never alleged that due to trial going on at Bhagalpur they are prejudiced in the sense that no Advocate is willing to conduct the case on their behalf.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners by way of reply has submitted that Section 479 of the Code also deals with the case in which the Judge or Magistrate is personally interested wherein it is provided that no Judge or Magistrate shall, except with the permission of the court to which an appeal lies for his court, try or commit for trial any case to or in which he is a party, or personally interested, and no Judge or Magistrate shall hear an appeal from any judgment or order passed or made by himself.