IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 77 of 2011() ------------------------------- CC.694/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KALADEVI, W/O. SACHU, UTHRAM HOUSE, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-6. BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KRISHNAPRASAD, S/O. SWAMINATHAN, ANJANAM HOUSE, WARD NO.VI, KADAKKARAPPALLY PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs TPCR. NO. 77/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE I : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.4.4.2011 FILED BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA. ANNEXURE II:COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.10.8.2011 IN CRL.M.P.NO.955/11 OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA. ANNEXURE III:COPY OF THE FIR NO.440/07, DTD.31.7.07 SIGNED BY ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA NORTH. ANNEXURE IV:COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DTD.31.3.2010 SIGNED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. ANNEXURE V :COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.31.1.2011 IN CMP NO.5281/2010 IN CC NO.694/2007 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ALAPPUZHA. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Tr.P.(Crl.) No.77 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.694/2007 which is pending before CJM Court, Alappuzha. There were two accused in that case. The 2nd accused was discharged by the learned Magistrate as per Annexure V order. The offences alleged against the accused are under Secs.406, 420 and 409 r/w 34 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain observations made by the learned Magistrate in paragraph 4 of Annexure V order is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner who is the first accused therein. It was observed by the learned Magistrate that the prosecution has no case that the withdrawal slip or pay-in-slip were forged by the first accused with the connivance of the second accused. Similarly it was observed that the amount was allowed to be received by the first accused for and on behalf of CW1. These observations, according to the learned counsel, would reveal the mind of the Tr.P.(Crl.) No.77 of 2011 -: 2 :- learned Magistrate and so serious prejudice will be caused to the accused if trial is conducted by the learned Magistrate. 3. I find that the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel is not well founded. Those observations were made by the learned Magistrate only to discharge the 2nd accused. There is no finding that the first accused has committed any offence. Acceptability or otherwise of the case against the first accused would depend upon the evidence that may be adduced by the prosecution. There is no reason to believe that the learned Magistrate has pre-judged the issue. Any way, to allay the anxiety or apprehension of the petitioner, it is made clear that the learned Magistrate will not be influenced by any of those observations while appreciating the evidence that may be adduced by the prosecution in this case. This Tr.P.(Crl.) is disposed of as stated above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J UDGE. Jvt