.^a-ssS^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR pETITlA^ER/ACCUSBD ~7 Ttamfer PeUtion (Cr.) No. 17/201Q Sm.t. Chandrakaata Shrivastava, , Retd, Principal Govt. H.S. Schoo], Aged about74years,W/o Shri K.L. Shrivastva, R/Q Reun Colony, Behiud Stadiuin, Raigarh, C.G. VERSUS RESPONDBNT State of Ghliafysgarh, Thrpugh - District Magistrate, Raigarh, Distt. Raj^ai-h, C.G. jgniisjNaass^ 3. PBTITION UNDER SBCTION 407 OF CODE OF CRDflINAL PROCEDURE. 1973. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Paakaj Shnvastava, Advocate for the petitioner. ShriU.K.S. Chandel, P.L. for the State/respondent. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedon 06/12/2010) This is transfer petition for Sessions trial No. 60/2003 penduig before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Rajgarh on the grourid that petitioner is haviiig appreciation , that fair and impartial trial would be possible by trial Court. Leamed counsel for the parties are heard. Learaed counsel for the petitioner veheiuenfly. argaed that Court has acted uureasoiiable inanner aad has not proyided sufficient opportunily for adduciag defence. Co'urt has acted iri jiasl^ marmer. Court has recaUed the orderdated 11/8/10 arid eyen fixed fhe case for final hearmg it crcate impressftm. ia;.the mtnd of fhe petitioner that impartial and fair trial woyld.not be possible by the 4th Additional Sessiohs Judge, (F.T.C.) Raigarhthereforecase be traasferred toaay otherCourt; /.^''- : 4. On the ofher hand, learaed counsel for fhe State/respondent opposed the petition aad submits fhat while allowiug the crimiaal revision No. 405/2010 vide order dated 30/8/2010 High Court has directed the Court for early disposal of the case. Session trial is pendiag siuce 2003 Court has not acted iu the manner prejudicial to the petitioner. Conduct of ttie petitioner appears that petitioner is interested ia delayiag the trial. 5. As per petition, copy ofother documents, session trial is pendiag before the Court below since 2003 previous Presiduig Judge has taken strict view on 4/12/09 aad by rejecting appUcation of the coinplauiant Judge has permitted to examine two witnesses on behalfofthe defence thcrcafter petitioner have filed appUcation for examiaation of 3 other witnesses aad production of document which was dismissed by fhe trial Court same was chaUenged iu revision which was allowed. In compUance of the revisional order trial Court has examiaed other witaesses. Petitioner has also filed petition for tTansfer before the Sessions Judge saine was disinissed. OriginaUy case was posted for final ai^ument on 11/8/10 same was adjoiiraed for 8/9/10 on account of non- availability of fhe record which was reqiusitioned by Sessions Judge, for disposal oftransfer petition on 11/8/10 after passing of first part of the order trial Court has received fhe record from Sessions Court thereafter considering long next date case was fixed for 12/8/10 aud parties were again sununoned on 12/8/10 aflar hearing the parties case was adjoumed for final hearing for 20/8/10 bv recaUing the order dated 8/9/10 leamed trial Court has not acted ui prejudicial manner. Vide order party ia revision it '.—.:i'"^ •^- Slff" was under obUgation to decide fhe case withiu 3 nionths even oftierwise case is pending since 2003 for inore fhaa 7 years trial Court was under obligation to decide the case as early as possible. Conduct of fhe petitioner reveal that she has tried to delay the case step by step and when finatly he faUed then she bas filed fhe traasfer petition, I do not find aay ground for trausfer ofthe case tiiat too at the stage of final hearing, petition is dismissed in lunine subject to payinent of cost of Rs. 2,000/- within 15 days fmva. today to the opposite party/respondent before Trial Court. Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge vw