IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 Tr.P(C).No. 23 of 2011() ------------------------ OP.1022/2010 AND O.P.NO.1021/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- MATHEW M.B., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.BENCHAMIN DAVID, "PEARL VILLA", PERIYATT, PILATHARA P.O., KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670501. BY ADV. SRI.PINTO FREDERIC SMT.K.ANILA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- SHEEBA THALIYIL, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.MATHEW M.B., TEACHER, G.M.U.P.SCHOOL, MADAYI, P.O.MADAYI, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670358. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER SOUGHT PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE TRANSFER PETITION WITH LIBERTY TO FILE A FRESH TRANSFER PETITION IN CASE OF OCCURRENCE OF CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES. PERMISSION IS GRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE TRANSFER PETITION IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN WITH THE AFORESAID LIBERTY. 17.1.2011 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J ---------------------------- Tr.P.C. No. 23 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of April, 2011 ORDER This petition is filed by the accused in S.C.No. 354 of 2010 of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha for offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner seeks to transfer the case to any other court on the ground that CW1 is a practicing lawyer of the said court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, second respondent/CW1 and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also obtained a report from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha in the matter. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner has a genuine apprehension that petitioner may not get a fair trial on account of the fact that the second respondent is a lawyer practicing in the trial court. Learned counsel for second respondent submitted that there is no necessity to transfer the case. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor in this regard. 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha has reported that he does not personally know the second respondent and that the second respondent is not practicing in his Court. Learned Tr.P.C. No. 23 of 2011 2 Sessions Judge also informed that he has no embarrassment in hearing and disposing of the case, which is scheduled for trial on 02.05.2011. It is true that the petitioner has an apprehension but when request for transfer is being considered, this court should also consider the stigma that may be cast on the presiding officer concerned when the request for transfer is allowed. In the present case, learned Sessions Judge informed that he does not personally know the second respondent, who is not practicing in his court and that he has no embarrassment in trying the case. In such a situation, apprehension of the petitioner cannot be said to be genuine. I do not find any reason to think that there will not be a fair trial conducted by the learned Additional Sessions judge. Hence the request for transfer cannot be allowed. 5. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner intends to engage another lawyer from Ernakulam for his defence. The case is now scheduled to commence trial on 02.05.2011 and CWs 1 to 5 are scheduled to be examined on that day. Further trial is to take place on 11.05.2011.The counsel to be appointed by petitioner for his defence has difficulty in appearing in the trial court on 02.05.2011. Moreover, he requests some time to go through the files. In the circumstances, a direction may be issued to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to Tr.P.C. No. 23 of 2011 3 adjourn trial of the case scheduled on 02.05.2011 to another convenient day before 11.05.2011. Though that is a matter which learned Additional Sessions Judge should decide, I find some merit in that request of petitioner. Resultantly, this petition is disposed of directing the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha to consider the request, if any made by petitioner to adjourn trial scheduled in S.C. 354/2010 on 02.05.2011 to a day convenient before 11.05.2011 having regard to the circumstances stated by petitioner and pass appropriate order in that regard. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. ln