HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELA$PUR Transfer Petitaan (Criminal; No‘ 08/2a08 APPLICANT. ' Chandra Prakash, S/o Shri Mani Ram, agad about 34 years, R/o Quarter‘No, S—B, $tr6et No. 4, Ssctor -—I, Bhilai, Tahsjl &. Distn'ct Durg (C.(}.). VERSUS N9N-APPLICANT ‘Lalit Desh Pandey, S/o Shn’ Laxmali Rao, aged. about 35 ysars,5R/o No; 14- B, ‘I’~ Pocket Maroda Ssctoxf, Bhilai, Distn'ct Durg (C.G.). APPLICATION UNDER SECTEON 407 OF CREMINAL ?RGCEDURE CGDE. {SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.sharma, J.§ Present: Shn Uttam Pamiey Advocate fo1 th€ apphcant - None for the non apphcant ‘ ORAL-ORDER '. (Passed on 24/6/2008) 1. This petition is for transfer of c‘n'mina} appeal No. 05/2008 £rom the 12th Additional Sessions Jud.ge (F;T.C.)I Dm‘g to another Court on the ground that applicant is having fear that he will not get justice from such Com. 2. Petitlon and copy of order sheets perused o. Heard on admissmn as well as on 1A No 01/2008 application for stay of the proceedmgs 4. Accoi‘ding to the copy of order sheet and petition appeal of the applicant against the conv1ction and sentence under Section 1 8 of the Negotlable Instruments Act is pending before the 1201 Additional Sessions Judge Durg . The 12th Additional Sessions Judge Durg directed the appellant] applicant who was not ready to rgue the case vide order dated 5/ 4/ 2008 and 16/4,! 2008 ito argue I) . a @9 the case and in any contingency of non—availability of the Advocate to make some alternate arrangement for argument. On 22/4,! 2008 appellant’s advocate was not in position to argue the case then after hearing the argument of the respondent case was flxeti for judgment meantime case was requisitioned by the Sessions Judge and listen with the transfer petition filed on behalf of the applicant which was finally dismissed for want of prosecution. 5. It is alleged that Additional Sessions Judge has suggested for compromise to applicant and if the case is not settled then the matter would not be in the interest of the applicant. It-has also alleged that Additional Sessions Judge has not passed the order within reasonable time on 18/2/2008) but the Court compelled to applicant to present in the Court for full day. 6. lt appears from the petition and copy of the order sheet of the 12the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg that after suspension of sentence imposed upon the applicant is not keen to argue the case before trial Court. Additional Sessions Judge appears to be rigid in adjournment. Applicant is not abie to satisfy that learned Additional Sessions Judge is acting prejudicially against the interest of applicant and not hearing the case impartially. 7. . I do not iind any merits in the petition, consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. 8. According to order dated 22/4/2008 Additional Sessions Judge has not heard the appellant and appeal has not been finally disposed of secondly, it is directed that trial Court shall effort the —/_ ® reasonable opportumty of h€anng to the apphcant preferably to hearmg and dec1de the appeal expedmously