Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Petitioner is the prosecutrix in S.C.No.104 of 2011 on the files of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda which stood transferred to the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda as per Ext.P1 order dated 30.11.2012 of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Thrisur. This petition has been filed challenging Ext.P1 order and seeking for a direction to transfer the said case to the Court of Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda virtually to re-transfer it to that court. The delation against the first respondent/accused is that he has committed offences punishable under sections 376, 420, 384 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal code. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge in the midst of the trial in S.C.No.104 of 2011, viz., after the examination of some of the prime witnesses, was transferred and posted as the  Principal Assistant Sessions Judge in that station itself namely, in Irinjalakuda and a new Judge, a woman Judge, took over that office. Thereupon, the first respondent herein/the accused filed TMP.No.3862 of 2012 before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Thrissur to transfer S.C.No.104 of 2011 to Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Thrissur. After hearing, as per Ext.P1, the case was transferred from the Court of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda to the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda. That order was passed on 30.11.2012. Subsequently, the case was transferred and the trial was proceeded with. The petitioner herein who is the prosecutrix now filed this transfer petition assailing Ext.P1 order of transfer and seeking a transfer of the case back to the Court of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda.

There cannot be any dispute with respect to the position that the general rule is that as far as practicable, a Judge who recorded the evidence in an enquiry or trial shall be permitted to give the judgment. In this case, evidently, the examination was conducted and the evidence was recorded not by a woman Judge. Taking into account the fact that trial in this case was conducted in part and evidences were recorded by the presiding officer who now functions as the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda while functioning as the Additional Assistant Judge at Irinjalakuda itself and even after Ext.P1, continued with the trial in the case and virtually, arguments and then pronouncement of judgment are left in the matter. This fact is not disputed before me. When such be the position, the general rule  as mentioned above persuades me to hold that it would only be conducive in the interest of justice to permit the same Judge to continue with the trial and render the judgment. I am of the view that proviso to section 26(a) cannot be pressed into service in this case, at this stage. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that transferring, virtually, re-transferring the case solely to satisfy the proviso to section 26(a) would not be in the interest of justice in view of the general position of law that it would always be better to allow the Judge who conducted the trial and recorded the evidence to render the judgment. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P1 order. This Crl.M.C is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed.