IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14617 of 2008 VIKASH MANDAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02- 2.5.2008 Heard Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha for the petitioner, and Dr. Maya Nand Jha for opposite party no.1. The petitioner is an accused in Sessions Trial No.419 of 2007, arising out of Belhar P.S. Case No.108 of 2003. He has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), and is aggrieved by the order dated 23.2.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IV, Banka, whereby he has rejected the application of the present petitioner to amalgamate the trial of G.R. Case No.1158 of 2003/ Tr. No.750 of 2007 (Belhar P.S. Case No.109 of 2003), pending in the court of Shri J. Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Banka. 2. The present petitioner is accused in the aforesaid Belhar P.S. Case No.108 of 2003, and is facing trial pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tack Court-IV, Banka. He is also complainant in a complaint case which is currently pending in the court of 2 the said learned Judicial Magistrate. According to the present petitioner, the two cases relate to the same incident and are case and counter case with respect to the same occurrence. Therefore, the present petitioner filed an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, for transfer of the said case from the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate for joint trial. The same has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to transfer the case pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate to his file. He has further observed in the order that the trial before him is in the final stages and the present application is perhaps a tactics on the part of the present petitioner to prolong the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following reported judgments: (i) 2008 (1) P.L.J.R. 273 (Jamahir Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar). (ii) A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 826 (Sudhir and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh). 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears 3 that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, has no jurisdiction to transfer to his file for joint trial, another trial pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate. The obvious remedy for the present petitioner was either to file an application under section 323 of the Code before the learned Magistrate for transfer of the case pending before him to the court of the learned Sessions Court, or to file an appropriate application before the learned Sessions Judge for the purpose. Secondly, in view of the observations made in the impugned order that the trial before him is in an advanced stage, and the present application is an attempt to prolong the trial, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 4. In that view of the matter, this application is rejected. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/