SALMAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present misc. transfer petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking transfer of Criminal Appeal No. 31/2006 from the court of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur to this Court. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and has been sentenced to undergo one year's simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur by his judgment dated 17.2.2006. By the same judgment, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had acquitted the petitioner from the offences under Sections 143, 144, 148, 201 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner has preferred the aforementioned appeal against the said judgment challenging his conviction, which is pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. At the same time, as per the judgment of the learned C.J.M. Jodhpur dated 17.2.2006, the other accused persons who were tried along with the petitioner namely Kuldeep and Others were totally acquitted from the charges levelled against them.

(2.) The State of Rajasthan has preferred two criminal appeals, first being Criminal Appeal No. 685/2006 against the acquittal of the co-accused persons from all the charges levelled against them and the acquittal of the present petitioner from the offences under Sections 143, 144, 148, 201 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and second being Criminal Appeal No. 267/2007 seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act.

(3.) The present misc. transfer petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner praying that the file of Criminal Appeal No. 31/2006 filed by the present petitioner against the judgment dated 17.2.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur which is pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur may be transferred to this Court and be heard together with the aforesaid two criminal appeals being 685/2006 and 267/2007 as the same arise out of one judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and, as such, the propriety and the law demands that the same may be heard together.