IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 94 of 2008() --------------------------- CC.1104/2006 of J.M.F.C.-I,KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 --------------------------- JOHNSON AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, THAYYIL VEEDU, HOUSE NO.121,23/89,RAMESWARAM HOUSING COLONY. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON T.V.(PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHINI ANTONY AGED 30 YEARS, ILANJIKKAL VEEDU,PERUMALPADY, FISHERIES COLONY, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA P.O.,KOZHI-682503. BY P.P. SRI. P. RAVEENDRA BABU. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Tr.P.(Cri)No. 94 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner who is the 1st accused in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.498A IPC. The petitioner had filed an application for transfer of the case and the learned Sessions Judge had rejected the said prayer. The petitioner has again come to this Court with the prayer for a direction for such transfer. 2. The petitioner appears in person. Though he was specifically asked whether he wants the services of a counsel, he has refused to avail the services of a counsel. He was given an opportunity to think about it and to advance his arguments. It was promised by this Court that the services of a counsel shall be made available to him if he wants. He stands by his earlier assertion that he does not want a counsel. Tr.P.(Cri)No. 94 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3. The prayer for transfer is founded on the primary reason that the case was being adjourned from time to time without any justification. A report of the learned Magistrate was called for. The report reveals that there was no fault on the part of the Magistrate for the failure/omission to dispose of the case earlier. The sequence of events is clearly revealed from the report of the learned Magistrate and the order sheet maintained by the learned Magistrate. 4. I do not find any valid or sufficient reason to justify the prayer for transfer. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this petition only deserves to be dismissed. 5. The petitioner, who appears to me to be in a state of agitation and turmoil, has been advised by me to go back to the court below and engage a counsel if he wants or to avail the services of a State Brief counsel. The records reveal that the learned Magistrate has ensured that the co-accused, the father and mother of the petitioner are given the services of a counsel. 6. The learned Magistrate shall take note of the condition of the petitioner and shall give him all opportunities to effectively defend the case against him. He shall again be asked by the learned Magistrate whether he wants to avail the services of a lawyer and if requested by him, such service shall be made Tr.P.(Cri)No. 94 of 2008 -: 3 :- available to him. Such lawyer shall be permitted to further cross-examine the witnesses already examined as I find that the petitioner notwithstanding his adamant stand has not been able to conduct his case properly. 7. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. The learned Magistrate must ensure that the case is taken up for trial and disposed of expeditiously. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/