89 HIGH CGURT CF CHHPATTEGARH AT E§LASP8 hangfer P‘gmion gm} Ma. Miami: Ric vmage Jaiudi Thana Gobra Nawamra. Distréc‘: Raipur, CG. A??L3CAT§CN UEEER SECTIQN 40? CF CREMINAL F§GCEI§U§E SODE 197.3 (SE: ”Han‘ble Mr. TR Shawna, J.) resent: Shri Satendra Sahu‘ caunsei for the appliaams ' Shri U.K.S. Chandei. Page! Eaw‘ e:-fo¥ tba Statelnan—aspi') mi O (Passedirjkg‘rfgg, 2mg} Th s miktion has been med for transfer‘of $e5$ions Ts'éa! No. 5f20G8 (State sf ChhaiiiSgarh v. Mahendra Ku'mar) pending before the Additionai Se5sions Judge, Gariyaband to zhe Coun of» Raipur on the ground that nan-appimant No. 2 who is accused for the offence punishable under sections 37$! 45G 'aa’xd 506 cf the IPL on the report of the. applicant Na. 2 who is wife of the appiicant No, 1 regmaey givingthrea: to the applicants, not is give any evkience against him. 2. i eave heard learned matinee} fer the appiicants and the non-appiicam NM and perused fine order dated “16‘52008 passed by the Sesaions Judge; Raipur‘ cam; 9f the documents, copy 0'? written repert and other reievam documents. n2 e“ Learned ccunsei for me appiicams submits jhat the non-appiicant No. :2 Is facing triai fert’he effenoe pumshabie under eectio'ns 3%, 450 and §O$ of ihe IFC before the Adeiiienai Sessions Judge. Garivaband.'The appiican‘t No. 1 is the husband of the appticam No. 2 who is victim of rape. , R ~ ApblScanm 1. Kaushai F’ra5ad $io @am Klmar, Aged abaut 35 yearg 2. $mi. Anita $ahu Wig Kaa-Esha] Prasaé, Aged abwt 3U ‘yeafa Beth PJe VEQ¥ége Viaudi ‘Thana Nawapara Districi Rainw, ‘13 Veg'sus Nan-appiicanis 1.’ $taie of Chhattisgarh, thmugh District Magistrate, D§strict Raipur, CG’ Mahendra Kumar sxo Kisa‘niai Sahu, The non—awiica’nt NG‘ 2 waS threatene£§ by the apgiiicarm in (Ere conceabence 1 he men-mp mam NG as snf’ueniaé perszm hm: ng radars and me ds an Garlyaband T hsii and he has cpeniy aha iengea‘ that he Wm be acquatteé by iemaoersng the witness;es. 4‘ En support cf his conteniioa, iearned counsei for the apgiécants pieced a'ei§ance on the decision 6f me Hon‘bie Apex (30m %n the mai‘ter of 3at§$h Jaggi V. State of Chhattisgarh and others" in which it is heid that though the presenf Judge showed no disinciinaiion of hear the matter and would have acfed in frue sehse of a judiciai oii‘icer, stiii in order to ensare that justice is nof only done buz‘ aiso seen to ‘be done, and considering the pecuiiar facts of the case, it would be appropriaie if fhe High Cour? transfers the case to same other Sessions Court, By relying para—5 of the said judgment. learned counsel for the aropiicants submits that aopreherrsion must ’not oniy be entertained. out' must appear to the court to be reasonabie aoprehension. Para 5 of the Said iudgment reads as under:- “The law with regard to transfer of cases is weii settled This ”rt y} Parnhafnn {Eee f‘hadka w Qfafa 9f Rajac‘fhaq held that a case is transrerred rr mere rs a reasonabre apprehension on the part'of a party to a case that iustice Wiii not be done. Thi Cow said mat a pe’rrtro er rs not requ red io demonstrate that rusrrcewuhnevrtaoiy ran He rs entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred iha‘t he enferiains an apprehension and iha‘r it is reasonable in the circumstances aiieged. This Court further he!d that it is one of the erincipies of the administration of justice that justice shouid not oniy be done but it shouid be seen to be done. This court has further to see whether ’rhe apprehension is reasonebie or not. This Court aiso saru tnat to judge the reasonabieness of the apprehensron the state of mind 9f the nmc n u amen-arm i-im nnmhe um is n doubt reievant but that is not aii The apprehensron must not nnh! be entertained but must Appear to the court to be reasonabre apprenension v rm“ a unuvuunru unu Fray :vn :u n Fair and imoaniai iustice is paramount consideration for transferring the case. in the case of Satish Jaggi‘s (supra), the Apex Court has specificaliv mentioned in para-ii that it wili be appropriate to transfer the case and also made clear that the transfer shaii not be construed as casting any aspersion on the learned Sessions Judge. in that case. transfer of case was prayed on the ground that Sessions Judge is elder brother of a sitting MLA who was very cose to the father of the accused who was the then Chier Mlnrster of the State Despite this fact the Hon bio/Apex Court has held that though the present Judge showed no drsrnclrnafron of hear the matter 5. \ i 20ui} n—l n o cat/u was rm o4 m. - and wouid have a'cfed in frue sense of a wdiciaf oificer, stiii §n order to ensure ihafjustice is nof oniy acne bm‘ also seen t0 be dame, am considering the pecui’iar fads 02‘ the case. if wamd be. aggpmpriaa‘e if t}e High Cam fransfers the case ta same ofher Sessions Cami. 6 in the instant case, no specific aiiegation has been made agamst the Court of Ad§itionai Sessicns judge, Gariyaband. The aikagation is against the non-appiicant No. 2, Wm is accused of the criminal case. This i3 not a case in which the applicant No. 2, who is victim of the case, wili be i'nfiuenced by the non-appticant No.2. The appiican’ts are required to go to the Court oniy for a day for giving their evidence. They are not reguiarfy contesting party tike the comptatnant. No ispecific aliegations relating to relatives and friends have been made. The appticants have not named the persons who are reiatives. friends and influential persons. The entire allegation isvague. ’i, €0hsequentiy‘ after- heai’ing the counsel for the applicants and - consit‘ierlng the documents available on record, l am of The opinion that'for the sake .oi convenience of the applicants, it ie not a tit case fer transfer trom the Ciourt'oi Gariyahanci’to the Sourt ct Raipur and therefore, the petition being without substance is iiaicle to be dismissed and it is herein; dismissed. 8. However. if the appiicants feei any insecurity on the date of evidence. they may take help from the concerned Superintendent of Police. sui- l l T.P.5HARMA l l Judge rv e \