IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:06.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.24240 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 Sundar .. Petitioner/Accused No.2 Versus State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Puvanagiri Police Station, Cuddalore District. (Crime No. 447 of 2003) .. Respondent/Complaint Petition filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C to withdraw and transfer the case from the Fast Track Court No.I, Chidambaram pending trial in S.C.No. 74 of 2004 to any other Sessions Court at Cuddalore. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gandhikumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniappa Raj Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to transfer the case from the Fast Track Court No.I, Chidambaram, pending trial in S.C.No. 74 of 2004 to any other Sessions Court at Cuddalore. 2. The petitioner/2nd accused has filed an affidavit in support of his Transfer Original Petition stating that a murder case was registered against five accused including the petitioner, who is accused No.2 in the said case. It is alleged that the learned Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chidambaram without consent of the petitioner and other accused engaged a counsel on behalf of the accused and started the Trial Proceedings and examined 14 witnesses. The accused https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ requested the Judge to appoint a legal aid counsel to defend the case but the learned Judge refused to accept the request of the accused persons. Further, the learned Judge threatened the witnesses, while they were giving evidence, before the said Court, by stating that if they do not support the prosecution case, the Court would take action against the witnesses. 3. Further, it is alleged that the Learned Judge threatened the accused in the Open Court saying that the Life Imprisonment is not sufficient for the accused and only the sentence of hanging will be given to the accused. Then only the others will be afraid of the above sentence. Further, the petitioner informed his relative, who is practising in Chennai, about the behaviour of the learned Judge. The said Learned Advocate came to Fast Track Court No.I, Chidambaram on 13.07.2007 and applied for the Docket Order and Deposition copies filing a memo of appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 4. The learned Judge accepted the Memo of appearance and returned the Copy Application by saying that it will be presented only in the morning at 10.30AM. Thereafter on 21.07.2007, the Copy Application was presented before the said Court by the Counsel but it was returned on two grounds, 1) to state the provisions of law under which the copy of docket order was applied for and 2) to mention the specific dates on which copy of docket order was applied for. The explanation also was given but it was returned on 01.08.2007. The memo of appearance was filed by the learned Advocate only to get docket order and deposition copies. But the Trial Judge, in the Open Court told the Learned Advocate that the said memo of appearance was taken as if it is filed in the main case for conducting Trial. But the same was objected to by the Advocate by saying that he is a Junior Advocate and that he has been instructed to file the memo of appearance for getting the above said documents to prove that the Trial was conducted without giving opportunity to the accused to engage a defence counsel to defend them, and the Court also had not appointed any Legal Aid Counsel to defend the case on behalf of the accused persons. 5. Further, the petitioner has stated that he had made a complaint to the Honourable Chief Justice of High Court on 25.07.2007 by stating all the above facts and biased mind of the Learned Judge and requested him to intervene in the illegal proceedings conducted by the Learned Judge. Knowing the complaint, the Learned Fast Track Judge hurriedly continued his illegal proceedings. 6. The petitioner, in support of his case, has filed three documents including complaint to the Learned Judge and case particulars, etc. 7. In the above case, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and Learned counsel for the State appeared and arguments were advanced by them for their respective parties. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the nature of the case is a Murder case and the accused persons have made serious allegations against the learned Judge. In the interest of Justice, the allegations of the petitioner, need not be verified as to their correctness. The petitioner and other accused persons are afraid that the Learned Judge's attitude is prejudicial to them. 9. Under the circumstances, the Court decides to transfer the case from the file of Fast Track Court No.I, Chidambaram, to Fast Track Court, Vriddhachalam, Cuddalore District. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition No.24240 of 2007 is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mps/mra To 1.The Fast Trck Court I, Chidambaram 2.the Fast Track Court, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore. 3.The Inspector of Police, Puvanagiri Police Station, Cuddalore District. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104. Crl.O.P.No.24240 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 nsm(co) pmk.22.8.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/