bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. CRI. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 482 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 482 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 482 OF 2008 Dr.Pankaj C. Gandhi ... Applicant (Ori. Accused) v/s 1. Mr.Rohit M. Sanghvi ... Resp.No.1 (Ori.Complainant) 2. The State of Maharashtra ... Resp.No.2. Applicant in person. Respondent No.1 in person. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 1ST APRIL, 2008 1ST APRIL, 2008 1ST APRIL, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This application seeks transfer of C.C.No.95/SS/2006 and 95/SS/2006 from the file of 21st Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai to any other Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. 2. The grievance of the applicant is that the Magistrate is biased against him and this bias is reflected in his behaviour in Court as well as in the order dated 1.12.2007 in which the Magistrate has 2 labelled the applicant as a habitual criminal. The applicant has complained of the behaviour of the Magistrate to the S.I.D. as well as to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and has sought sanction to prosecute the Magistrate. 3. It appears that the trial is now coming to an end and the applicant is being examined under Section 315 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In this view of the matter, although it is evident from the instances revealed by the applicant that it could be possible that the Magistrate is entertaining some doubt about the credibility of the applicant, it would be inappropriate to transfer the case at this stage to any other Court. The applicant has challenged the order dated 1.12.2007 before this Court in Writ Petition No.2278 of 2007. By an order dated 6.2.2008 the order dated 1.12.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside on payment of costs. The applicant could have at that stage sought transfer of the pending case. He chose not to do so. In fact, he could have pointed out to the Court that the Transfer Application No.173/TA/07 was rejected by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, on 22.11.2007. The applicant, for reasons best known to him, has challenged the order in this proceeding without any mention in the earlier writ petition of bias on the 3 part of the learned Magistrate. 3. In my opinion, therefore, it would be inappropriate to transfer the proceedings at this stage. However, the learned Magistrate is cautioned against the use of intemperate language either in the Court or in any orders passed by him in respect of the applicant herein on the basis of any preconceived notions. 4. Application rejected. (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.)