ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition by accused Ashok Kumar, has been filed with a prayer for transfer of the case titled as State v. Ashok Kumar pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ramnagar, to any other court of competent jurisdiction in district Jammu. The only ground in support of the transfer of petition is that the prosecution evidence has been closed and, during the course of proceedings, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur, has transferred the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ramnagar, vide its order order dt. 3rd of Dec'12. According to the petitioner, it has caused extreme inconvenience to him because he has to travel more than 100 kms from Jammu and to appear before the learned JMIC, Ramnagar. It is claimed that his case is squarely covered under Section 526(1)(d) and (e) of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) I have heard Mrs S.Hakim, learned DAG at some length. She has pointed out that on account of huge pendency of old cases in the court of learned CJM, Udhampur, the case was transferred to the court of learned JMIC, Ramnagar, and once the petitioner was attending the hearing at Udhampur, then, to say that it would be inconvenient for him to attend the hearing at Ramnagar, is wholly unjustified.

(3.) Having heard learned State counsel, I am of the considered view that this application for transfer of the case from the court of JMIC, Ramnagar to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Jammu, is wholly misconceived. The petitioner has been attending the hearing in the aforementioned criminal case at Udhampur. If the case has been transferred on account of administrative exigency emerging from the policy of the High Court to dispose of the old cases under the action plan, then, it would not arm the petitioner with a cause of action to seek transfer of his case to Jammu. The distance between Udhampur to Ramnagar is about 35 kms, and therefore, it is incorrect for the petitioner to state that he has to travel 100 kms, as he has already been attending the hearing at Udhampur. I am also unable to find any support from the provisions of Section 526(1)(d) and (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for transferring the case of the petitioner from JMIC, Ramnagar, to Jammu. More over, the prosecution has not closed its evidence because an application has been filed by the prosecution under Section 540 of the Cr.P.C., seeking permission to examine some material witnesses which have not been examined earlier. This petition, as such, is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.