IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 15 of 2009() --------------------------- SC.996/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------- 1. NOUFAL, S/O.JAMALUDEEN, KOLAKKAL PUTHENVEEDU, K.C.75, SARATHI NAGAR, KARICODECHERRY, MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SHIJU, S/O.ALIYARU KUNJU, KINARUVILA KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, KARICODECHERRY, MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.S.PREETHA SMT.DELIYA PONSEK RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND CW1 & 2 ------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SRI.ABDUL AZEEZ, ADVOCATE ZAM ZAM HOUSE, PUTHENMADOM, THEVALLY WARD, THEVALLY PO., KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. SRI.SAMEER, ADVOCATE, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, ZAM ZAM HOUSE, PUTHENMADOM, THEVALLY WARD, THEVALLY PO., KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = T.R.P.(CRL). NO. 15 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009. O R D E R This transfer petition is filed to transfer S.C.996/04 pending before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Adhoc-1, Kollam to any other Court. The allegation is that respondents 2 and 3 namely CWs.1 and 2 who are practising lawyers at Kollam Courts have close acquaintance with Courts of Kollam Sessions Division. It is averred that the 2nd respondent was a former Public Prosecutor and he is having high influence in the police department and prosecution and he is having much clout with political parties. When advocates are practising in Courts certainly the advocates will have acquaintance with the Presiding Officer and vice versa. Both advocates and judges are exercising the duties cast on them and if cases are to be transferred on the ground that a particular lawyer is practicing in a particular Court and that he may have acquaintance with the Presiding Officer, it will have the effect of striking at the root of the T.R.P.(Crl) 15 OF 2009 -:2:- judicial system and discipline which we are maintaining in this State. After all CWs.2 and 3 are two witnesses in a prosecution case. The witnesses can only depose what they have stated when they were questioned and if they turn hostile there are relevant provisions which allow the parties to tackle that situation. The case is of the year 2004 and it is coming up for trial on 11.2.2009. I do not find that grounds alleged are sufficient to grant a transfer. There is absolutely no pinch of materials to prove any bias or influence and therefore the transfer petition is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-