IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 78 of 2008() --------------------------- ST.705/2007 of J.M.F.C.,AMBALAPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- THOMAS JOHN MUTHOOT,S/O. (LATE) MATHEW M.THOMAS,AGED 45,MUTHOOR CENTRE, PUNNEN ROAD,TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER GRADE II, MONCOMBU. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tr.P.(Crl.).No. 78 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under the provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The prosecution has been launched before the Court of the J.F.M.C., Ambalapuzha., within the jurisdiction of which court the alleged culpable act took place. The allegation is about non- maintenance of records in respect of certain employees. Cognizance has been taken and the matter has been pending from 2007. 2. The petitioner at this stage has come to this Court with a prayer that the case may be ordered to be transferred to any court at Trivandrum. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner first of all submits that the petitioner is the Managing Director of a company and the office of that company and also the permanent abode of the petitioner are all at Trivandrum. He further submits that the petitioner suffers from Tr.P.(Crl.).No. 78 of 2008 2 ailments and diseases and it would be virtually impossible for him to face the trial at Ambalapuzha. It is then contended that the four individuals, in respect of whom there is alleged non-compliance with the provisions relating to maintenance of registers, do all work for a company at Trivandrum and that if their participation is necessary in the trial it will be advantageous to hold the trial at Trivandrum. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that as per law though the place of work is alleged to be at Ambalapuzha the books and registers are liable to be maintained only at Trivandrum. 3. I have considered the submissions and contentions. I am not persuaded to agree that any valid reason has been shown to justify the transfer. That it is more convenient for the petitioner to conduct the trial at Trivandrum cannot be reckoned as a valid reason. The fact that the petitioner wants to raise certain defence which would suggest that the employees in question are not working at Ambalapuzha and that they belong to an institution at Trivandrum is again not a reason which would justify direction for a transfer. There is nothing to show any illness or debility of the petitioner. I am not persuaded to agree that Tr.P.(Crl.).No. 78 of 2008 3 the prayer for transfer is justified. This transfer petition only deserves to be dismissed. 4. The petitioner can apply for exemption from personal appearance and the learned Magistrate must consider such prayer under Section 205 Cr.P.C. in the light of the decision in Jain Babu v. Joseph (2008 (4) KLT 16). 5. With the above observations this petition is dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm