Crl. Misc. No. M – 28824 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M – 28824 of 2010 Date of decision:- April 21, 2011 Parveen Dutta & Ors. ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & Anr. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- M.S.Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P.S.Bajwa, DAG, Punjab. Mr. S.S.Majithia, Advocate, for the respondent Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioners – Parveen Dutta, Rajesh Dutta and Rajeev Dutta have filed this petition under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the transfer of the case titled “State Vs. Rajesh Dutta etc” arising out of FIR No.185 dated 25.8.2005, registered under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC in Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, from the Court of Sh. A.K.Singla, Additional Sessions Judge Tarn Taran to some Court of competent jurisdiction in other District of State of Punjab. They had contended therein that respondent No.2, being an Advocate and Secretary of Bar Association District Amristar, is an influential person and the said FIR was got registered against them and others falsely. On account of the influence of that respondent no advocate was ready to appear on their behalf. They had been left with no other alternative but to file a petition for the transfer of the case from Amritsar Crl. Misc. No. M – 28824 of 2010 -2- and the same was transferred to Tarn Taran. This Tarn Taran was previously a Tehsil of District Amritsar. Even at Tarn Taran they had not been able to conduct the case properly, for want of right atmosphere. No advocate of that place is ready to appear on their behalf and they have been left with no other alternative, but to engage an Advocate from out station. On each and every date of hearing they are to face the scouts of the local lawyers, who threaten them that they have taken a fight with the lawyer and they should be ready to face the dire consequences. Even the staff of the Court is supporting respondent No.2 as on one of the dates of hearing they appeared in the Court when the case was called, but it was openly told in the Court that a call had been received from that respondent that he would reach the Court premises late and as such case was to be taken up after 2 O' Clock. On each and every date of hearing they are to wait whole of the day as the Court waits for respondent No.2. Even application has been filed for the cancellation of their bail in order to harass them. The application has been opposed by the respondents, who have filed independent replies. Respondent No.1 stated in its reply that the material facts have been concealed by the petitioner from this Court and false and frivolous petition has been moved merely on surmises and conjectures. It was on the application of the petitioners that this case was previously transferred to Tarn Taran from Amritsar. 11 witnesses have been cited, but so far only respondent No.2 has been examined in-chief. Sh. Mandeep Singh, Advocate of District Court Jalandhar and Gurmit Singh, Advocate, District Court Tarn Taran have already been appearing on behalf of the petitioners at Tarn Taran. The petition is malafide and wrong Crl. Misc. No. M – 28824 of 2010 -3- allegations have been made therein. Respondent No.2 in his reply denied the contentions of the petitioners and pleaded that he is not holding any political post in the Bar Association at Amritsar, from the last more than one year. The Court at Tarn Taran is not giving any preferential and special treatment to him. He never used his influence in any manner at any stage to the prejudice of the petitioners. Even at Amritsar they were represented by a senior counsel of Amritsar; namely, Sarv Sh. Sandeep Gorsy and S.S.Chahal. The only intention of the petitioners, in moving this petition, is to cause inconvenience to him with intention to get the case transferred from Tarn Taran. At present Tarn Taran is separate District having separate Bar Association. The petitioners have already chosen learned counsel from Jalandhar and Tarn Taran. Story put forward by the petitioners that the Court acts at his behest and that Court waits for him is a concocted one. There is no ground for transferring the case from Tarn Taran. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, who reiterated their respective contentions as made in the petition and the replies filed to the same. The following order was passed in the previous petition filed by the petitioners for the transfer of this case:- "The petitioners, who are facing trial in a case registered on a complaint made by V.K.Dhand Advocate (Respondent No.3), now respondent No.2, seek transfer of that case from Amritsar Sessions Division to some other Sessions Division, as they apprehend an unfaithful trial under the Crl. Misc. No. M – 28824 of 2010 -4- influence of respondent No.2 who is President of the Bar Association, Amritsar. The petition is contested on behalf of respondent No.3 (now respondent No.2), mainly on the ground that no one can influence the Court proceeding and rather petitioners are the influential persons and are trying to interfere with the administration of justice. It is stated that petitioners managed to obtain order from the Deputy Commissioner for getting a report from the Medical Board as to whether their case would fall under Section 307 or 326 IPC. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that the case in question deserves to be transferred to some nearby district so that the trial is conducted in a congenial atmosphere. Admittedly, respondent No.3 in Crl. Misc. No. 65288-M of 2006 now respondent No.2 in Crl. Misc. no. M – 28824 of 2010 at whose behalf the case is registered, is the President of the Bar Association Amritsar. In order to avoid unnecessary friction between the parties, it would be in the interest of justice, if the matter is transferrd to District Courts at Tarn Taran. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the case is transferred from the Court of Session Judge, Amritsar of the Court of Senior-most Additional Sessions Judge at Tarn Taran who shall decide the matter in accordance with the law. Crl. Misc. No. M – 28824 of 2010 -5- Sd/- Nirmal Yadav August 12, 2008 Judge Thus, for ensuring the conduct of the trial in congenial atmosphere and to avoid unnessary friction between the parties, the case was transferred from the Court at Amritsar to the Court at Tarn Taran. It is very much clear from the contentions made in the present petition that the same position persists at Tarn Taran, which used to be one of Sub Division of Amritsar, though at present is independent revenue district, but continues to be a part of the Sessions Division Amritsar. It is well established that justice is not only required to be done, but seems to have been done. The petitioners are not expecting fair and impartial trial at Tarn Taran, in view of the facts pleaded by them in the petition, which appear to be correct in view of the fact that respondent No.2 was examined in-chief about one and a half year back and his statement has not been completed by the Court so far. The trial should have been conducted expeditiously, but the same has not been done. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel for respondent No.2 that he is appearing in the trial Court, but his cross- examination is not being recorded on account of the objection being taken up by the petitioners about the piecemeal recording of the evidence. It was duty of the Court to record cross-examination of that witnes as a dictate has been issued by the Apex Court that in no case the cross-examination of the witness should be deferred for more then three days. The trial Court has not only ignored provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C, but also the dictate so given by the Apex Court. In view of the fact that the petitioners are not expecting fair and impartial trial at Tarn Taran, which is a writ large from the above Crl. Misc. No. M – 28824 of 2010 -6- discussion, this case is transferred from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran to the Court of Sessions Judge at Ludhiana, for deciding of the same in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before that Court on 25.5.2011. The petition is disposed of accordingly. April 21, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge