IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 91 of 2008() --------------------------- SC.175/2001 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KALPETTA SC.199/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MOHAMMED ALI, KAPPUNGAL HOUSE, UPPUKULAM, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERLA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CB CID, KOZHIKODE. 3. CB, CID, WAYANAD. 4. CB CID, PALAKKAD. 5. CB CID, THRISSUR. 6. CB CID, ERNAKULAM. 7. NOUFAL, S/O. KUNHUMOHAMMED, KALATHIL HOUSE, CHUNGAM, KARUVARA KUNDU, PUNNAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 8. HANEEFA, S/O. MOHAMMED, PILAYATHODI, VATTAMANAPPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 9. IBRAHIM, S/O. ANTHEEN KUTTY, OTTUKATH HOUSE, PANTHALLOOR, PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. Kss ..2/- .2.. Tr.P.(CRL.)NO.91/2008 10. THAMBI, S/O. MELTU, P.O. UPPANGADI PUTHOOR TALUK, KARANATAKA STATE. 11. MAJEED, S/O. PUTHENVEETTIL, KUNHAVARU, THIRUVATHARA P.O., 12. SHUKKOOR, S/O. RAYANMMARKAR VEETTIL, HANEFA, PALAYUR P.O. 13. ASHARAF, S/O. MANAYATH KUNJUMON, PERAKAM P.O. 14. ABOOBACKER @ BACKER, S/O. MUSLIYAM VEETIL KUNHIMAMU, KECHERI P.O. 15. LATHEEF,S/O.NALAKATH KULIYIL SALI, VENMANAD P.O. 16. LATHEEF, S/O.ABOOBACKER, MUTHANMAVU, MANATHALA P.O. 17. SALI, S/O.KULANGARAKATH KANAPPILLY ABU, KADANGOD P.O. 18. SHARAFUDEEN, S/O.CHANDANAPARAMBIL BAPPU, MAMA BAZAR, CHAVAKKAD P.O. 19. SHAKEER, S/O.ERAYANVEETTIL KUNHIMUHAMMED, PALUVAI P.O. 20. SHAMSUDEEN, S/O.VALIYAKATH KADAVIL KUNJUMON, MAMA BAZAR, CHAVAKKAD P.O. 21. A.K.HAMSA @ HANSU, S/O.ANTHEEN, P.M.HOUSE, NEAR NOOTH MASJID, P.O.POKKUNNU, KOZHIKODE – 13. 22. M.FAIJAD, S/O.MAJEED, VALODA HOUSE, P.O.VITILAPALLI, MARAKKAR KANDI, KANNUR. 23. ASYA, W/O.MOHAMMED ALI, KAPPUNGAL HOUSE, P.O.UPPUKULAM, MANARKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 24. SUKUMARAN @ BABU, S/O.UNNIKUTTY, VATTAKANDATHIL HOUSE, AKKOMPARAMBIL, PULIYAKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 25. ABOOBAKER SIDDIQUE T.K., S/O. MOHAMMED, MELECHILAMBATTY VEEDU, KONDOTTY P.O., NEDIYIRIPPU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U.NAZAR THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Tr.P(Crl). No.91 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in 5 different prosecutions for offences relating to counterfeit currency notes before 4 different courts in the districts of Palakkad, Wayanad, Kozhikode and Trichur. He is not the sole accused in the cases and there are other accused persons also. Prosecuting agency is also different and the Crime Branch C.I.Ds in these 4 districts are prosecuting the respective cases. 2. The petitioner has now come before this Court with a prayer that the 4 cases pending before the courts at Wayanad, Kozhikode and Trichur may be ordered to be transferred to the Sessions Court, Palakkad, which is the home district of the petitioner, so that the petitioner who is said to be sick can conveniently defend the indictment against him. This is the sole ground to justify the prayer for transfer. 3. I have considered the submissions made. I am unable to agree that the illness of the petitioner can be reckoned as a sufficient ground to transfer the cases pending in various courts Tr.P(Crl). No. 91of 2008 2 to the home district of the petitioner. I must note that the prosecuting agencies are different and more importantly that there are other co-accused who also have to face the trial. I am not, in these circumstances, persuaded to accept the request for transfer. I do however take note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is sick. The petitioner can apply for exemption from personal appearance and the court concerned can consider the acceptability of that request. At any rate, I may particularly state that the presence of the petitioner should not and need not be insisted by the court unless such presence is absolutely essential for the further progress of the case, if he is effectively represented by a counsel. 4. This Crl.M.C is dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-