Dismissed

Rameshwar Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2018TACR/370/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal transfer application under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, the court dismissed the plea to transfer the case from District Hathras to another district. The court held that the grounds for transfer were vexatious and mischievous, intended to delay proceedings, with no evidence of malice by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of the case from District Hathras to another district was dismissed.

Rameshwar Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

A.F.R.

¶2

Court No. - 42

¶3

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 370 of 2018 Applicant :- Rameshwar Sharma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This transfer application has been filed to transfer the Complaint Case No. 109 of 2006 (H.S. Agrawal vs. Parsadi Lal and others), under Section 135 of Electricity Act, Police Station - Sadabad, District - Hathras from District - Hathras to other district.

¶7

The contention raised before this Court is that in this case, the complainant was required to produce some papers before the court, but the papers have not been produced and because of non-production of papers, defense of the applicants shall be prejudiced and therefore, the proceedings should be transferred.

¶8

The brief facts of this case are that opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint under Section - 135 Electricity Act, 2003 and in respect of the aforesaid complaint, Complaint Case No.109 of 2006 (Shri H.S. Agarwal vs. M/s. Parsadi Lal and others) was registered. The applicants as well as the other co-accused were summoned under Section-135 Electricity Act, by the court concerned and trial commenced. It is stated that after the conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, evidence of the defense was also completed and the case was fixed for final argument, but after elapse of considerable period the applicants claimed that due to non completion of the records, the hearing and judgment of case was postponed by the trial court itself. It has been claimed by way of affidavit that just after postponement of date of final argument, the applicants submitted an application on 5.9.2014 for re-calling of the witnesses, which remained undecided till 2.8.2016. Thereafter, the trial court rejected the application of applicants vide order dated 2.8.2016 on an arbitrary ground.

¶9

It has further been submitted that against the aforesaid order, Criminal Revision No.2469 of 2016 was also preferred, which was disposed of by this Court on 24.8.2016, copy whereof is appended as Annexure No.5. It has further been claimed in Para 10 of the affidavit that due to long illness, the applicants could

¶10

not appear before the trial court and the counsel for the applicants filed exemption application for appearance before the trial court, which was rejected vide order of trial court dated 14.6.2018. Consequently, non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicants. It appears that applicants are very much offended with the issuance of non-bailable warrant and claim that the same was arbitrary and perverse and as such, the same was not required.

¶11

In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect of this case, it has been contended that since the original documents have not been brought on record and only photocopies of the record was placed on record, it was not possible to properly reply to those facts contained in the photocopies of the documents. It has also been claimed by way of affidavit that applicants have not occasioned any delay in disposal of the case and in Para 16 of the affidavit, it has been averred that applicants have no faith in the trial court and applicants have much apprehension that the trial court is going to award sentence in the absence of original documents against the applicants and the applicants have claimed transfer of the proceedings of aforesaid complaint case.

¶12

Obviously, bare perusal of the record and the long drawn litigation is indicative of fact that in this case, the entire proceedings had ripen for final argument of the trial and the case was pending for several years and the statement under Section-313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in the year 2012-2013. It is obvious that the applicants have sought no legal remedy against the issuance of non-bailable warrant and they have straightaway discovered pretext of having no faith in the trial court and have sought transfer. Very perusal of the order of lower court dated 6.4.2018 is indicative of fact that the applicants, though given opportunity to adduce testimony failed to produce it before the trial court. Order in this regard was passed on the application moved by the defense on 8.3.2018 and lastly, last chance to tender evidence was allowed by the trial court itself on 28.3.2018.

¶13

The grounds urged are on the face vexatious, mischievous and certainly, the same have been made with a view to delay further proceedings and to exercise pressure on the trial court itself. There is nothing on record which may reflect that the trial court is bent upon deliberately passing the order against the applicants out of malice. It is the merit of the case that alone is to be considered. If the applicants have any grievance against the issuance of non-bailable warrant, then they may seek proper remedy before the appropriate forum.

¶14

For the reasons aforesaid, no good ground is made out for

¶15

transfer of this case and accordingly, this transfer application is dismissed .

¶16

It is made clear that observation so made shall not touch the merit of the case.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.9.2018 S Rawat

Rameshwar Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Singh Vs State of U.P.

Prakash Chandra Vs State

Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Premu (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kripa Shanker Alias Kripa Vs State of U.P.

Umrao Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another