IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 77 of 2008 --------------------------------- (S.C. 247/2004 OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA) ............. PETITIONER/ 1ST ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- MADHUSOODANAN, S/O. KUNJU PILLAI, BHARATI MANDIRAM, THEKKEKARA, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR. RESPONDENT: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZER. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT, J ---------------------- Tr.P.Crl.No.77 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the first accused in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Section 307 read with 149 I.P.C. That crime took place on 06/10/2002. Investigation was completed. Final report was filed. The case was committed and the sessions case was registered in 2004 as S.C.No.247/04. A period of six years has elapsed. The trial has not commenced. It is rescheduled to commence later this month. The petitioner has now come to this court with this application for transfer praying that the case may be transferred to any other court outside the Sessions division of Alappuzha. 2. What is the reason? According to the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge is showing undue insistence for expeditious disposal of the case. On an earlier occasion, the learned Sessions Judge listed the case for trial without and before verifying whether the principal witnesses in the case are available to be examined. Such listing of the sessions case for trial was without even verifying whether the case was ripe for Tr.P.Crl.No.77/08 2 trial. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory had not been obtained and the case was listed. Thus, the learned Judge had allegedly shown undue haste in proceeding with the trial and this had obliged the petitioner to come to this court with Crl.M.C.No.517/08 which was disposed of by Annexure IV order dated 06/02/2008. Another Bench of this court had directed that trial should be continued only after getting the material objects and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. It was also directed that the trial must be continued only after procuring the presence of the principal witnesses CWs 1 and 2, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The resumed trial is scheduled to commence later this month. At this point, the petitioner has come to this court with the prayer that the case may be transferred on the ground that he apprehends that he may not get fair trial at the hands of the Presiding Officer of the Sessions Court. The only reason urged is that, earlier, attempts were made to prematurely proceed with the trial and the petitioner had to come to this court. No other reasons are urged. It is true that a prayer for transfer can be made and allowed by this court when this court is satisfied that Tr.P.Crl.No.77/08 3 there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the indictee facing trial that he may not get a fair trial and the trial before the Presiding Officer may not be fair and just. First of all, there must be an apprehension. Secondly that apprehension must objectively be found to be reasonable. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am unable to agree that there is room for an apprehension and much less a reasonable apprehension. The prayer for transfer made in this petition cannot obviously succeed. The petitioner must get ready for trial. 4. This transfer petition is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Tr.P.Crl.No.77/08 4 Tr.P.Crl.No.77/08 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008