IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 12 of 2008() --------------------------- CC.4/2001 of IV ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ----------------------- V.JAYAKUMAR, S/O.VELAPPAN PILLAI, SAROJ, THEVALLI, QUILON. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.R.ANIL SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CBI, COCHIN REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL 2. K.THANKACHAN, S/O.KOCHU KRISHNAN (LATE), T.C.17/2445, JAGATHI, CIT ROAD, THAIKAD P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 3. J. RAJMOHAN PILLAI, S/O.K. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, KJP HOUSE, KAWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM. 4. M/S. PACE INTERNATIONAL LTD., NNC ESTATE, VADAKKEVILA PO, QUILON 10. 5. L. ANAND SHARMA, S/O.DR.LAKSHMI NARAYANA SHARMA, 307 REHEJA CENTRE, AVINASHI ROAD, COIMBATORE - 18. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR STANDING COUNSEL FOR CBI. S.SREEKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Tr.Petn.(Crl.) No.12 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who is the 5th accused in C.C.No.4 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam, seeks transfer of the case to any other court competent to try the case for the reason that the Presiding Officer of the very same court had tried an earlier case, C.C.No10/05, in which the petitioner herein was the 3rd accused and the petitioner was convicted by the very same Special Judge. 2. According to the petitioner, since all the accusations and materials projected against him in the present case are exactly the same as in C.C.No.10 of 2005, he does not expect a finding other than one of conviction from the same court which has no other option except to repeat the very same findings and arrive at the very same conclusions. 3. This Court called for the remarks of the Special Judge. As per order dated 31.01.2008, the learned Special Judge has sent detailed remarks in which the message conveyed is that he is not expected to be swayed by the evidence adduced in Tr.P.No.12 of 2008 2 C.C.No.10/2005. If so, I see no reason why the petitioner should continue to entertain any apprehension against the Presiding Judge. It is not necessary for this Court to emphasis that every case is to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case. I see no good ground to entertain the request for transfer of this case to any other court. This Transfer petition is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj