Jharkhand High Court
Awadhesh Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 10 July, 2015
Author: R. N. Verma
Bench: Ravi Nath Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 280 of 2015
Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, son of late Anant Pandey, resident of Panki Road,
Redma, PO & PS Medni Nagar, District- Palamau
... Petitioner(s)
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh, son of late Sitaram Singh, resident of village
Chandandih (Latehar), PO & PS Latehar, District- Latehar
... Respondents
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. M. Jalisur Rahman, J.C. to G.P.III
03/10.07.2015The sole petitioner has challenged the legality of the order of the Principal District Judge, Latehar dated 08.06.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 04 of 2015 by which the court refused to transfer the complaint case no. 168 of 2011, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar to the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar.
2. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Tiwari appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel representing the State.
3. It appears from the ordersheet enclosed with the writ petition that in the year 2011, one complaint case was filed under Section 420 of I.P.C. and also under Section 138 of N.I. Act whereafter vide order dated 30.05.2012, the court took cognizance of the offence in the above two provisions. Aggrieved by the said order, the accused persons preferred one Criminal Miscellaneous Petition bearing No. 1129 of 2012 in this court and vide order dated 10.07.2012, direction was given not to take any coercive step against the petitioner-accused, which continued till 10.01.2014. This court quashed the order taking cognizance with respect to Section 420 of I.P.C. but directed the court concerned to proceed in accordance with law against the accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Thereafter, the court examined few witnesses. On 10.03.2015, the court of S.D.J.M., Latehar directed the complainant to produce witnesses on 18.04.2015 but before 18.04.2015, by the order of the Principal District Judge, Latehar, the case was transferred from the court of S.D.J.M., Latehar to the court of C.J.M., Latehar. The accused preferred an application before the Principal District Judge, Latehar for re-transfer of the said case to the court of S.D.J.M. but after hearing both the parties, the Principal District Judge, Latehar vide order dated 08.06.2015 rejected the prayer holding as follows:-
" Taking into consideration of entire facts and circumstances, from the material as well as 2 discussion made above, I find no ground for transfer of the record pending in the court of the C.J.M., Latehar and instant petition filed by present petitioner it is none else, but delaying tactics either one pretext or other."
The court further directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar to expedite the matter and conclude the trial within two months.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this writ application.
4. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner seriously contended that the Principal District Judge of a District has no power to transfer a case, which is pending for evidence, from one court to another and the order of the learned District Judge dated 13.03.2015 by which the complaint case was transferred from the court of S.D.J.M. to Court of C.J.M. is bad in law. It was also submitted that the said court of S.D.J.M., Latehar was in seisin of the matter from the very inception of the case.
5. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel representing the State submitted that the Principal District Judge, being the head of the administration, has every power to transfer a case from one court to another and it is in consonance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. For the better appreciation of the issue involved in this writ application, reproduction of Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary, which reads as under:-
Section 408. Power of Sessions Judge to transfer cases and appeals.- (1) Whenever it is made to appear to a Sessions Judge that an order under this sub-section is expedient for the ends of justice, he may order that any particular case be transferred from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in his sessions division. (2) The Sessions Judge may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested or on his own initiative.
(3) The provisions of sub-sections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (9) of Section 407 shall apply in relation to an application to the Sessions Judge for an order under sub-section (1) as they apply in relation to an application to the High Court for an order under sub-section (1) of section 407, except that sub-
section (7) of that section shall so apply as if for the words "one thousand rupees" occurring therein, the words "two hundred and fifty rupees" were substituted."
7. A Principal District Judge of a District is also the Sessions Judge of the said District and Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly mandates that the Sessions Judge has every power to transfer a case from one court to another either (i) on the report of lower court or (ii) an application filed by a party interested or (iii) on his own initiative.
8. Apparently in the instant case, the Principal District Judge- cum- Sessions Judge, Latehar transferred this case from the court of S.D.J.M. 3 Latehar to the court of C.J.M., Latehar. The court of Chief Judicial Magistrate is senior to the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. In a case Ibrahim Mian Vs. State of Bihar; 1986 PLJR 475, the Hon'ble court has held that the Sessions Judge under Section 408 of the Code has every power to transfer a case. The legislature in his wisdom, anticipating different situations, has given the power to transfer a case from one court to another even suo moto on his own initiative. Seeing some administrative exigencies, the cases can be transferred and in those cases, the disclosure of the reason for transfer is not mandated under any law. Hence, there appears to be no irregularity or illegality in the said transfer order. Learned counsel Mr. Tiwari has not argued on any plausible ground to re-transfer the case from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar to the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar.
9. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned dated 08.06.2015 passed by the Principal District Judge, Latehar.
10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Cr.) is, hereby, dismissed.
(R. N. Verma, J.) Ritesh