IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. M-22708 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 29, 2011 Mohana Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. H.S.Rakhra, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. The petitioners have prayed for transfer of case FIR No. 95 dated 13.8.2010, under Sections 302, 341, 323, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Rama, District Bathinda, titled State Vs. Hardeep Singh and others from the Court of Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. According to the petitioners, criminal case against them and others was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The same was, thereafter, entrusted to the Court of Shri Rajeev Malhotra, Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Tack Court, Bathinda where it was adjourned to 1.4.2011 for hearing arguments on the point of charge. However, in view of the order dated 31.3.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, the file was put up before Ms. Manju Rana, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 1.4.2011 and the case was adjourned to 15.4.2011 for further orders as well as for Crl. Misc. M-22708 of 2011 -2- production of Ajaib Singh, one of the accused, who was not produced by the jail authorities. On 15.4.2011, the case was received by transfer by Shri Sukhdev Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, who adjourned the same to 3.5.2011 for arguments on charge. On 3.5.2011 and 17.5.2011, arguments on charge were not advanced, instead, date was requested. The case was adjourned for arguments on charge. On 25.5.2011, the case was entrusted to the Court of Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, who had, in the meantime, taken over as Fast Track Court. After receiving the case by transfer, Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal, Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Bathinda ordered for putting up the file on the date fixed in terms of the previous order. On 6.6.2011, the said Court took up the file as Ajaib Singh, one of the accused, who was in judicial custody, had been produced from Barnala Jail. The hearing was adjourned to 10.6.2011. On 10.6.2011 Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda heard the arguments and ordered for framing of charges for offences under Sections 148, 302 and 341 IPC against the petitioners and their co-accused. The prosecution was directed to examine four of its witnesses on 4.7.2011 and another six on 7.7.2011. However, on 4.7.2011, the case was fixed for 7.7.2011 and 14.7.2011. On 7.7.2011, the prosecution gave up two of its witnesses. Another witness Sukhdev Sharma was present in the Court but as he had not brought the relevant record, he was bound down for 14.7.2011. Three more witnesses did not put in appearance despite service and, accoringly, bailable warrnats were issued against them for 18.7.2011. No other witness was served. Accordingly, the proceedings were adjourned to 18.7.2011 by summoning the witnesses of the prosecution Crl. Misc. M-22708 of 2011 -3- mentioned at serial Nos. 11 to 13. On 14.7.2011 one PW was partly examined. As an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution, the proceedings were adjourned for 18.7.2011 for filing reply to the same and for its consideration. The plea of the petitioners is that Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda is neither the first Additional Sessions Judge of the said place nor he has got the requisite experience of two years as Additional Sessions Judge as required/laid down by letter dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Registrar General of this Court to all the District & Sessions Judges under its jurisdiction requiring assigning of the cases under Section 302 IPC for trial to Additional Sessions Judges having two years experience. Reference has also been made to letter dated 20.8.1991 addressed by the Registrar of this Court to all the District & Sessions Judges under its jurisdiction whereby they were directed to henceforth conduct the trial of the murder cases themselves or assign it to the first Additional Sessions Judge. The contents of letter dated 20.8.1991 have been reproduced in para 10 of the petition. A perusal of letter dated 20.8.1991 did ordain the Sessions Judge to conduct the trial of murder case himself or assign it to the first Additional Sessions Judge. However, the bar of not assigning it to any other Additional Sessions Judge could be relaxed by this Court on a reference made for the purpose by the Sessions Judge concerned having regard to the number of cases pending before him or before the first Additional Sessions Judge, as well as other relevant considerations. However, letter dated 20.8.1991 stands Crl. Misc. M-22708 of 2011 -4- superseded for all intents and purposes by letter dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) by permitting the assignment as far as practicable of cases under Section 302 IPC for trial to Additional Sessions Judges having two years' experience. Therefore, there is no absolute bar on the assignment of cases under Section 302 IPC for trial to Additional Sessions Judges having less than two years' experience. Thus, the petitioners cannot be heard saying that as Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal was having less than two years' experience as Additional Sessions Judge, the trial of the case against them and others should not have been assigned to him. As per the Gradation and Distribution list of officers of the Judicial Department, Punjab, Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal took over as Additional District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc)/Fast Track Court on 16.4.2009. He continued to hold the said post uptil 31.3.2011 when the Government of India withdrew the Fast Track Courts. Therefore, as on 31.3.2001, Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal had worked as Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)/Fast Track Court for a period of one year eleven months and fourteen days. Subsequent to the Punjab Government deciding to set up Fast Track Courts in the State of Punjab, Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal took over as Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court on 23.5.2011 as mentioned by the petitioners themselves in para 3 of their application (Annexure P-2) submitted to the High Court. Therefore, as on 10.6.2011 when the charges were framed against the petitioners and their co-accused by Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal, he had further worked as Additional Sessions Judge for eighteen days. The said period of eighteen days when added to the earlier period of one year eleven months fourteen days served by Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal as Additional Crl. Misc. M-22708 of 2011 -5- Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court makes it clear that he had already two years' experience as Additional Sessions Judge when he ordered for framing of charges against the petitioners and others. It may not be out of place to mention here that when Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda took up the case for consideration on charge on 10.6.2011, no objection whatsoever was raised either by the petitioners or their co-accused about the Presiding Officer not being competent to try the case for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It was only on 19.7.2011 that the petitioners submitted an application to this Court alleging that Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal was having less experience than the one required for taking up the case involving the offence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, they cannot be now heard saying that Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda was not competent to try the case against them and others. In view of the above, no case is made out for transfer of the trial of the case against the petitioners and others from the Court of Shri Dilbagh Singh Johal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. The petition is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 29, 2011 JUDGE ajay-1