RAMNANDAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the complainant for transfer of Sessions Case No. 76 of 1956 which was being tried by Mr. N. Ahmad, Sessions Judge of Gaya.

(2.) THE trial was fixed for 16-1-1956 but the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the prosecution of the case filed an application on that date to the effect that the case should be adjourned because Shree Devasharan Singh, advocate, who was the principal witness in the case, was not available for evidence before 20-1-1956. THE learned Sessions Judge then adjourned the trial to 6-2-1956 when the trial actually commenced, several witnesses have already been examined on behalf of the prosecution but some more witnesses remain to be examined.

(3.) APPEARING on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Prem Lall has not urged all the grounds mentioned in the application for transfer but has confined himself to lour grounds for transfer. The first ground is that the petitioner entertains a reasonable apprehension that he will not have fair trial in the Sessions Judge's Court because the Sessions Judge did not summon a witness named Baliram Singh nor did he issue a warrant of arrest against him in spite of repeated prayers on behalf of the prosecution for the issue of process against that witness. It appears that Baliram Singh was examined as a prosecution witness in the committing Magistrate's Court. By mistake, however, he does not appear to have been summoned to attend the Sessions Judge's Court to give his evidence; On 8-2-1956, the Asst. Public Prosecutor filed a petition, praying that five witnesses whose evidence was, according to him, very essential should be summoned. The defence lawyer desired to know what purpose the evidence of the said witnesses would serve. The Assistant Public Prosecutor, therefore, filed another petition, setting out the purposes for which the prayer for summoning those witnesses was made. On 9-2-1956, the learned Sessions Judge heard the parties in connection with the petition and ordered that dasti summonses should be issued to the witnesses named by the Assistant Public prosecutor at the risk of the prosecution. It seems that one of those witnesses was Baliram Singh. On 14-2-1956, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition, praying that a warrant of arrest be issued against Baliram Singh; who had not turned up in spite of service oi' dasti summons. The Sessions Judge heard the petitioner on the 15th. February and passed an order as follows :