IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH APRIL 2009 / 25TH CHAITHRA 1931 TR.P(CRL.).NO. 43 OF 2009() ---------------------------------------- (AGAINST S.C. NO.682 OF 2008, DISTRICT & SESSIONS AD-HOC-II, THALASSERY) PETITIONER(S): IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ P.K.HARIS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, PATTANNUR AMSOM, AZHIPUZHA DESOM, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE S.H.O., MATTANNUR POLICE, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATTANNUR, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.A. SALIM THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = T.P(CRL.) No.43 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. I also perused the remarks submitted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Thalassery. 2. Petitioner is accused No.1 in S.C. No.682 of 2008 pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Thalassery involving offence among other things under Secs.376, 376(2)(g) and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code. Grievance of the petitioner is that he has been in judicial custody from July, 2008 onwards, Advocate T.V. Haridasan was appearing on his behalf but for some reason or other, that counsel was not available to appear on his behalf for cross-examination of P.W.1. Learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to cross-examine P.W.1, but the Advocates appearing for the co-accused did not permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witness. Later learned Additional Sessions Judge appointed Shri Rathnakaran, Advocate to appear on his behalf. But that Advocate is conducting the case to prop up the interest of the prosecution. It is also contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken special interest in the case. In the circumstances T.P(CRL.) No.43 of 2009 -: 2 :- request is made to transfer the case to any other competent court. 3. Petition is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. According to Public Prosecutor this Court had issued direction to the Additional Sessions Judge to expedite the trial and disposal of the case and that there is no merit in the allegations made by the petitioner. 4. Remarks of the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned was called for. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in her remarks has stated that chief examination of P.W.1 was recorded on 5.1.2009 but the counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 was not available and hence cross-examination of the witness was adjourned to 6.1.2009 after issuing notice to the counsel concerned. On 6.1.2009 that counsel appeared and submitted that since the petitioner took back the records from him through a relative of his and he has no information about the case. Learned Additional Sessions Judge thereon appointed Shri T.K. Rathnakaran from the panel of counsel for legal aid and he was conducting the case. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also stated that nothing has transpired in the court which could cause any apprehension about the impartial decision of the case. 5. It is seen from the report that Shri T.K. Rathnakaran who T.P(CRL.) No.43 of 2009 -: 3 :- was appointed as State brief has 10 years practice on the civil and criminal sides and been conducting criminal cases including offence under Sec.302 IPC as well. 6. I have gone through the petition and did not find any specific allegation even as against the Judge concerned, apart from a bald allegation that the Judge has taken special interest in the case. It is seen that this Court had directed early disposal of the case. Therefore learned Judge was required to expedite the trial and disposal of the case. That cannot be taken as a special interest taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which could have a bearing on the verdict in the case. For the mere asking a case cannot be transferred from the court where it is being tried. In this case examination of the prosecution witness has already commenced. I do not find justifiable ground to transfer the case. I do not also find justifiable reason for the apprehension of the petitioner as pleaded by him. Hence the prayer for transfer of the case cannot be granted. Transfer Petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv