SUSHIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the petitioner prays for transfer of a criminal case pending against him in the Court of Mr. R. Upadhya a Magistrate with first class powers at Patna,

(2.) The petitioner has made various allegations in his application. Firstly, it has been stated that the Magistrate was a Supply Officer at Gopalganj, and the petitioner's father Bhola Nath Choudhary, was the President of the Railway Mazdoor Federation, North-Eastern Railwaymen's Union and All India Consumers' Association. It has further been stated that the petitioner's father protested with Mr. Upadhya, the learned Magistrate, on several occasions on account of irregularity, etc. In his explanation, the learned Magistrate has stated that he was Supply Officer at Gopalganj in 1945-46, but he asserts that he had never heard the name of Bholanath Choudhary until he became a bailor for his son, the petitioner in this case. Along with a supplementary affidavit, some papers have been filed to show that some resolutions were passed at some meetings against the Supply Officer at Gopalganj. In my opinion, these papers do not show that there are really any troubles between the petitioner's father and Mr. Upadhya. I accept Mr. Upadhya's statement of fact, and my conclusion is that the petitioner's allegation is incorrect.

(3.) The petitioner has made another allegation to the effect that the Editor of the "Searchlight" is on inimical terms with his father, and one of the representatives of the paper is a friend of Mr. Upadhya. Mr. Upadhya has denied that any correspondent of the "Searchlight" at Patna is his friend. I accept his denial, and hold that the petitioner's allegation in this respect also is incorrect.