IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 18 of 2011() ------------------------------- CC.385/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------- K.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU NAIR, AGED 69 YEARS, CHITHIRA HOUSE, NAJATH NAGAR,KALAMASSERY,] THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE,KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOHN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645. 2. SAIDSAYEED,S/O.SAYEED LATHEEF, AGED 42 YEARS,SAYEED MANZIL,MADUKKERY, MUTHUDU ROAD,VIRAJIPETTA,KUDAK VILLAGE, KARNATAKA- 591 224. 3. STATE OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM - 682 031. R1, R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, ALONG WITH TPCR.NO.21/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(Crl.) Nos.18, 19, 21 & 22 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioner who is first accused in C.C.Nos.385 of 2010, 387 of 2010, 386 of 2010 and 384 of 2010 respectively of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta seeks to transfer all those cases to a court of Magistrate at Ernakulam or Aluva on medical grounds. 2. Petitioner, along with another is accused of offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in all these cases. Allegations against the petitioner are identical. It is alleged that the defacto complainants approached petitioner on getting information from one T.N.Sasi to get employment in the Indian Army, petitioner induced them to pay certain amount to him making them believe that he can arrange such job for them, failed to arrange job or return the money and thereby committed the offence. 3. Petitioner is residing within the local limits of Kalamassery Police Station. It is stated that petitioner is suffering coronary artery disease and is advised bye-pass surgery. Hence the request for transfer. 4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.MC Nos.18,19,21 & 22/2011 2 5. Annexure-III is the certificate dated 20.06.1998 issued from the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that coronary artery bye-pass surgery is planned for petitioner and that he is advised light work. Annexure-IV is a certificate dated 20.06.1998 of the same institute for financial help for petitioner. Annexure-V is a progress note dated 31.12.2010 from Amritha Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre. 6. It is seen that all the witnesses cited by the prosecution in all the cases hail either from Pathanamthitta or Thiruvananthapuram District. In such a situation it is difficult to direct transfer of the cases to Ernakulam which means that all the prosecution witnesses will have to travel right from Thiruvananthapuram and various places of Pathanamthitta District to Ernakulam. But the grievance of the petitioner also has to be redressed. It is stated that he is a cardiac patient. May be it is difficult for him to travel every now and then to Pathanamthitta to attend the court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not think that there may be dispute regarding identity of the petitioner. In such circumstance it is open to the petitioner to request learned Magistrate to grant permanent exemption and allow him to take part in the trial through a lawyer. In such situation his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) could be Crl.MC Nos.18,19,21 & 22/2011 3 held as directed by the Supreme Court in Basavaraj R. Patil and others v. State of Karnataka and others (2000 (8) SCC 740 – at page 743). Resultantly these petitions are disposed of permitting petitioner to request learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta to grant permanent exemption to him having regard to the illness he claims to be suffering. If any such request is made, learned Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders considering whether there is any possibility of dispute regarding identity of petitioner. In case learned Magistrate decides to grant permanent exemption, learned Magistrate may direct that examination of petitioner under Section 313 of the Code also could be conducted in the manner held by the Supreme Court in the decision cited supra. I make it clear that this order will not prevent petitioner requesting for a transfer of the cases at a later stage if circumstances warranted such a course. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks