HARBANS SINGH Vs. DAROGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for transfer of Sessions Trial 105 of 1956, pending in the Court of Mr. Jugal Kishore Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, to any other Court, on the following allegations.

(2.) The opposite party are being tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on a charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The occurrence leading to the prosecution of the opposite party is alleged to have taken place on the llth of January, 1956, in village Bairia within police-station Phulwari Shariff. There was another occurrence alleged to have taken place on the 10th of December, 1955, leading to the prosecution of the petitioner and others on a charge of murder in which a member of the family of the opposite party was alleged to have lost his life. It appears that the petitioner and others were standing trial in the Court of Mr. Anant Singh Sessions Judge of Fatna, and the case was numbered as Sessions Trial 110 of 1956. The 24th of August, 1956, was the date fixed for Sessions Trial 105 of 1956 in the Court of Mr. Jugal Kishore Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge, whereas the 20th of August, 1956, was the date for the opening of Sessions Trial 110 of 1956 in the Court of Mr. Anant Singh, Sessions Judge of Patna. Sessions Trial 110, however, actually opened in the Court of Mr. Anant Singh, not on the 20th of August, 1956, the date fixed, but two days later, on the 22nd of August, 1956. Petitioner Harbans Singh, one of the prosecution party in Sessions Trial 105 of 195G, made an application on the 23rd of August. 1956, in the Court of Mr. Jugal Kishore Prasad that he and Chandradeo Singh were accused in the other case in the Court of Mr. Anant Singh and that it was not possible for them to be in the proper frame of mind so as to be able to depose on the 24th of August in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The prayer was, however, rejected on the ground that no suitable date was available before the closing of the Courts for the Puja and the learned Judge was not prepared to adjourn the trial to any date after the re-opening of the Courts. Accordingly, on the 24th of August, 1956, Sessions Trial 105 of 1956 actually opened before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the prayer on behalf of the petitioner Harbans Singh was renewed for adjournment of the case by filing a fresh petition for the purpose to move the High Court against the order of rejection of the prayer for adjournment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, again rejected it on the ground that the Assistant Public Prosecutor was not asking for time and had not joined in the prayer. It may be stated that the complainant was represented by a Mokhtar engaged by him to look after the case. After the rejection of the above application, another petition was filed by the Mokhtar representing the complainant for adjournment to move the High Court for transfer of the case from the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, That application was not allowed on the ground that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had not pressed for transfer. About that time, Mr. Braj Nandan Prasad, Advocate, appeared and stated that the proper course to adopt would be that the case should not be taken up for some time and it might begin after 2 P. M. The application for adjournment was ordered to be kept on the record and the trial began after 2 P.M. Chandradeo Singh (P.W. 1) one of the members of the family of petitioner Harbans Singh was, however, released by "Mr. Anant Singh, the Sessions Judge, to depose as a prosecution witness in the Court of Mr. Jugal Kishore Prasad. He came to that Court and complained of pain in the stomach. He was accordingly sent back to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge. The grievance made by the petitioner is that, when he was sent back, the learned Sessions Judge threatened the witness as to why he had come back without deposing when he was released specifically to enable him to depose in the Court of Mr. Jugal Kishore Prasad.

(3.) The trial proceeded and on the 27th of August, 1956, Ramanuj Singh (P.W. 3) was being cross-examined. The allegation of the petitioner is that while he was under cross-examination the learned Additional Sessions Judge remarked to the defence counsel, "Why are you cross-examining? I am going to disbelieve this witness". On the 31st of August, 1956, the petitioner Harbans Singh (P.W. 8) was being cross-examined and, again, the learned Additional Sessions Judge said to the learned defence counsel, "No use wasting your time. I am going to disbelieve the witness". On the 1st of September, 1956 the case was taken up for argument at 11-15 A.M. and the prosecution had to wind up his argument before 12 A.M. when learned defence counsel rose to argue. The learned Additional Sessions Judge thereupon again observed to him, "In order to justify your existence argue for ten minutes only". After listening to a short argument addressed by Mr. Nageshwar Prasad, on behalf of the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge fixed the 10th September, 1956, as the date of judgment. In the meantime, judgment in Sessions Trial 110 of 1956, in the Court of Mr. Anant Singh, Sessions Judge, was delivered and the petitioner and the other co-accused were acquitted. An application was again made on the 8th of September, 1956, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for transfer of the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on receiving the application for transfer on the 8th of September, 1956, ordered that the delivery of judgment would be withheld pending a stay order from the High Court and time was granted to the petitioner till the 17th of September, 1956, for the same. The petitioner, accordingly, has come up to this Court with the prayer for transfer of the case.