IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Tr.P(Crl.).No. 105 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CC.776 /2008 AND CC.684/2008 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- LAJEESH. K.B., S/O.K. BALAN, AGED 29 YEARS, `NIRMALAYAM' A3 GANDHI NAGAR, PUTHUPARIYARAM POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT/ STATE: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, ALONG WITH TPCR NO.106 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------------------- Tr.P.(Crl.)NO.105 & 106 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 15th December 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.684/2008, 776/2008 pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kozhikode and C.C.403/2008, 420/2008, C.C.597/2008 and C.C.338/2009 pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II Kannur and C.C.160/2008, 161/2008, 175/2008, 186/2008 and 56/2009 pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad. Prosecution case is that petitioner committed theft of articles from running trains, on different dates and that too from different trains. Petitions are filed to transfer the cases pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kannur and Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode to Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakkad Tr.P.105 & 106/09 2 where petitioner is facing trial in five other cases contending that de facto complainants to be examined in all the cases are either from Palakkad, Ernakulam, Madras or Andhra Pradesh and therefore, it will not be inconvenient for them and petitioner is a resident of Palakkad and is under medical treatment and is advised not to undertake journey and so all the cases are to be tried at Palakkad. Petitioner also produced Annexure-A5 out-patient department record relating to the treatment of the petitioner issued from NIMHANS, Bangalore which shows that petitioner is under the treatment therein as an out-patient. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Tr.P.105 & 106/09 3 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as petitioner is now under the treatment and all the alleged offences are similar and allegedly committed from running trains and de facto complainants, who are the owners of the articles allegedly stolen, are from far away places, it will not cause inconvenient to them if they are made to appear at Palakkad and in the interest of justice all the cases are to be tried at Palakkad. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the offences alleged against the petitioner in all the cases are independent offences and committed on various days while traveling in various trains and in each of the case witness to be examined are different and witnesses to be examined in the cases Tr.P.105 & 106/09 4 pending at Kozhikode and Kannur are mostly from places to the north of Kozhikode and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to transfer the cases to Palakkad. 5. I find force in the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor. When the petitioner is facing trial in various cases spread over Palakad, Kozhikode and Kannur and that too on the allegation that he committed theft of articles belonging to the passengers, from various running trains and on various days, it is not in the interest of justice to conduct trial at one place as sought for, even on medial ground. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.