Karnataka High Court
Vijayakumar S/O Virupakshayya ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 February, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201405/2016
Between:
Vijaykumar
S/o Virupakshayya Chikkmath
Age: 62 years, Occ: Retd. Govt. Servant
R/o C/o Dr. S.A. Hiremath
Village Korwar, Tq. Sindagi
Dist. Vijayapur
... Petitioner
(By Sri Ravi G. Madabavi, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
Represented by Addl. SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Bench at Kalaburagi
... Respondent
(By Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar M., Advocate)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 407 of
Cr.P.C., praying to transfer the case C.C.No.370/2012 on
the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Indi to Civil Judge and
JMFC, Sindagi, which is registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:-
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 407 of Cr.P.C., praying to transfer C.C.No.370/2012 pending on file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Indi to Civil Judge & JMFC, Sindagi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.370/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 408 and 420 of IPC for having misappropriated the Government money while he was working in JMFC, Indi from 18.07.2009 to 17.02.2010.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner is trying to engage the advocate of Indi Bar, but nobody is 3 coming forward to appear and contest the case on his behalf. It is also contented that in Indi, there are some enemies of petitioner and the petitioner is afraid of his life. Hence, he wants to get transfer the case from Indi to Sindagi. It is further contended that the earlier counsel Sri. S.V. Kulakarni, who was appearing on his behalf has filed a retirement memo on 14.11.2016. In order to engage the another advocate, the petitioner requires some more time. Further, it is contended that the petitioner is residing in Korwar village, Taluka Sindagi, due to his old age, he is unable to travel from Sindagi to Indi. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that no good grounds are made out by the petitioner to exercise the power conferred under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. He has also contended 4 that the alleged offence has been committed by the petitioner during the year 2009 to 2010 and subsequently after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Now with an intention to drag on the matter, he has filed the present petition.
6. I have gone through the submissions made by both the counsel and also perused the records.
7. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is trying to engage the advocate in Sindagi, as the advocates of Indi Bar Association are not coming forward to appear on his behalf, but, if he is intending to engage a counsel in Sindagi, in the event of transfer of his case, he may engage the advocate of Sindagi and request him to come and conduct the case. In that light, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be not just and proper. If at all the petitioner is not getting any counsel on his behalf to conduct his case, 5 then in that event, as he was working in the Court as Shirastedar, he is aware of the fact that he can take the legal assistance of Legal Services Authority and proceed with the case. The way in which the petition has been filed reveals that only with an intention to drag on the case, the present petition has been filed. Even after filing of this petition, sufficient time gap was there to engage the counsel, but he has not done so. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any good ground to exercise the power under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. There is no merit in the case. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG Ct: MHS