Dismissed

Dr.Rajnish v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2019TACR/164/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this transfer application under s. 407 Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court examined a request to shift a pending trial from Bareilly to Rampur. Noting a filing irregularity in the supporting affidavit and observing that trial proceedings were actively ongoing with witnesses examined, the court rejected the claim of inactivity.

What did the court decide?

Application for transfer of Criminal Case No. 57 of 2013 and prayer for stay were dismissed.

Dr.Rajnish Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 164 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Dr.Rajnish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mazhar Ullah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

This application u/s 407 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accusedapplicant Dr. Rajnish with a prayer for transferring Criminal Case No. 57 of 2013, State Vs. Dr. Rajnish, arising out of Case Crime No. 814 of 2012, u/s 420 I.P.C. and 7/13 of Provision of Corruption Act, P.S. Bilaspur, District Rampur, pending in the Court of Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bareilly, to Court at Rampur with a further prayer for staying the proceeding till disposal of this application.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicant argued that this case is pending since 2013 at above Court, which was subsequently transferred to court of Special Judge (P.C. Act) at Bareilly. But the trial is not proceeding there at. Hence this application for transfer of above case from Bareilly to Rampur judgeship.

¶7

Learned AGA vehemently opposed this application with mention of report of Presiding Officer of Court of Special Judge (P. C. Act), Court No. 2, Bareilly, dated 30.8.2019, wherein present status of above trial has been narrated.

¶8

From the very perusal of affidavit of Mohd. Asif Usmani filed in support of application u/s 407 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that the capacity to file this affidavit has been explained as of being family friend of applicant, whereas this affidavit is apparently incorrect, because in paragraph no. 2 of the affidavit this proceeding has been written to be a proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C., whereas this is a transfer application u/s 407 Cr.P.C. The framing of charge by Magistrate has been written in paragraph no. 5 of the affidavit, whereas charge annexed is of Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rampur, who is competent to make trial for offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence this fact is again incorrect. This family friend is not aware of the fact and is of no locus for filing this affidavit, even then this affidavit has been filed.

¶9

Now on merit, it is apparent that this Court No. 2 of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) at Bareilly by Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge was filled by notification of this Court dated 25.7.2019 and vide Government Order dated

¶10

18.7.2019. This court constituted at Bareilly has been given jurisdiction for making trial of cases lodged under Prevention of Corruption Act for Sessions Divisions Budaun, Pilibhit, Shahjahanpur, Moradabad, Bijnor, Rampur and J.P. Nagar, and in compliance of above notification and Government Order this file was transferred to the above Court and was placed for the first time before above court on 7.8.2019 and since then trial is proceeding with a further date for which process u/s 350 Cr.P.C. along with warrant was issued against prosecution witnesses. Trial is proceeding and all witnesses of fact have been examined. Only Investigating Officer and Constable Clerk, who has lodged F.I.R., are to be examined for which adequate steps have been taken. Hence the very contention in this application is not substantiated by facts on record. This application merits its dismissal.

¶11

Dismissed accordingly.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.9.2019 Pcl

Dr.Rajnish v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Rajnish 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

Bachu @ Hira Lal Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Parmar @ Bunty and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Parmar @ Banti Raja and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jeetu Vs State of U.P.