- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.13 OF 2010 in WRIT PETITION NO.598 OF 2009 in CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.454 OF 2009 Shri YogendraSingh .Applicant/Orig.Petitioner Ex No.13984470K (Naik DORA) vs The Union of India & ors .. Opponents (Orig.Respondents) Col.R.K.Rai for Petitioner Mr.D.N.Salvi for Respondent no.5 Mr.V.B.Konde Deshmukh A.P.P. for Respondent State CORAM: SMT.RANJANA DESAI SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATED: 15th February 2010 P.C. 1. The petitioner was in Military Dental service. In this petition, he has inter alia prayed for an order setting aside the findings of sentence in Summary Court Martial. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Our attention is drawn to the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Section 34 thereof reads as under : 34.Transfer of pending cases- (1) Every suit, or other proceeding pending before any court including a High Court or other authority immediately before the date - 2 - of establishment of the Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based, is such that it would have been within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, if it had arisen after such establishment within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal. 1. Where any suit,or other proceeding stands transferred from any court including a High Court or other authority to the Tribunal under sub-section (1), (a) the court or other authority shall, as soon as may be after such transfer, forwards the records of such suit, or other proceeding to the Tribunal; (b) the Tribunal may, on receipt of such records, proceed to deal with such suit, or other proceeding, so far as may be, in the same manner as in the case of an application made under sub- section (2) of section 14, from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage or denovo as the Tribunal may deem fit. 3. We are informed that the Tribunal has started functioning in Delhi. In view of the clear language of section 34, the present writ petition has stood transferred to the said Tribunal. We may mention that this view of ours is also supported by the judgment of the division bench of Justice D.K.Deshmukh and K.K.Tated delivered on 10th December, 2009 in Writ Petition No.7484 of 2009. 4. Section 5 4) of the said Act states that the Benches of the Tribunal shall ordinarily sit at Delhi (which shall be known as the Principal Bench) and at such - 3 - other places as the Central Government may, by notification, specify. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Bench is not constituted at Bombay and if a Bench is constituted at Bombay the petitioner would like that his matter to be heard at Bombay. It is not possible for us to pass any such order. However, should the Bench be constituted it would be open to the petitioner to file an application before the Principal Bench that his matter be transferred to Bombay bench and if such application is made the Principal Bench shall consider it in accordance with law. However, we make it clear that on this aspect we have not expressed any opinion. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he wants to amend the petition. On an appropriate application for amendment being filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal may consider it in accordance with law. The Registry of this court is directed to transfer petition to the Tribunal at Delhi. SMT RANJANA DESAI, J SMT MRIDULA BHATKAR, J - 4 -