IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 29TH APRIL 2008 / 9TH VAISAKHA 1930 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 29 of 2008() --------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DTD. 24/11/2007 BY SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE IN CRL.MISC. PETITION NO. 2455/2007 IN C.C. NO. 837/2004 OF J.F.C.M., KOYILANDY) .................... PETITIONER/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- P.MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, PALATHIL HOUSE, KOZHIPPURAM, P.O., CHINGAPURAM, THIKKODI, KOYILANDI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY, SRI.BIJI MATHEW. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDI POLICE STATION. 2. KIZHAKKEVEETTIL PREMA, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.SATHYANATHAN, KANNAMPATHU HOUSE, PURAKKADU AMSOM, KOZHIPURTHA DESOM, P.O., CHINGAPURAM VIA, THIKKODI. 3. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, MANATHANKANDI HOUSE, PURAKKADU AMSOM, KOZHIPURATH DESOM,P.O.CHINGAPURAM VIA., THIKKODI. 4. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Tr.P.(Crl) No. 29 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 29th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for transfer. Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offences punishable under section 377 read with 511 IPC. The trial has already commenced. Some witnesses were examined. 2. At that stage, the petitioner went before the Sessions court to complain that he may not get justice at the hands of the presiding officer. The said application for transfer was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by a detailed order, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A2. 3. His application for transfer having been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner has come before this Court now with a prayer that there may be a direction for transfer. 4. What is the ground for transfer? It is contended TPCR.29/08 : 2 : that the matter has been settled between the parties but the learned Magistrate is refusing to accept such settlement. The learned Magistrate is insisting that the witnesses must conform to their statements given in the case diary. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner reiterates the prayer for transfer of the case. 5. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I find the learned Sessions Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter. The apprehension of the petitioner, who admittedly was not present on the date of examination of the witnesses, that the witnesses were intimidated by the Magistrate to compel them to conform to their case diary statements was found by the learned Sessions Judge to be without any basis or merit. 6. I totally concur with the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge. There is absolutely no merit to sail to a conclusion that the apprehension of the petitioner that he may not get justice at the hands of the learned Magistrate who is TPCR.29/08 : 3 : now trying the case has any substance. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that this petition deserves to be dismissed. The learned Magistrate evidently was not prepared to accept the composition of a non-compoundable offence and that appears to be prompting the petitioner to make these applications for transfer. 7. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks