In a criminal application, the Delhi High Court dismissed the applicant's request to transfer a pending special case involving bank fraud. The court found no merit in transferring the case due to the presiding officer's handling of a witness recalling application.
Application for transfer of the criminal case was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Ladda
appln-380-12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 380 OF 2012.
Kashinath Jadhav .. Applicant. Versus The Union of India .. Respondent.
Mr Prasad P. Pathare i/by Mr Rajesh D. Bindra for the Applicant. Mr Rajesh More, A.P.P. for the respondent- No.2.
CORAM : A.R. Joshi, J.
DATE : 2nd May, 2012.
P.C. :-
Sessions Court, Bombay in Misc.Appln.No.268 of 2011 is challenged. By the said impugned order, the said application in Special Case No.58 of 2006 was rejected.
appln-380-12
(3) During the pendency of the Special Case No.58 of 2006, before Court Room No.47 of Special Court at Bombay, an application for transfer of the case from then Presiding Officer to some other Special Court, was preferred by the present applicant accused No.4. The said Special Case pertains to fraud committed by the bank officials and certain other accused persons. Initially, prosecution witness No.1 was examined in chief and also in cross-examination and application for recalling of PW No.1 was made on account of the change of the advocate on behalf of the accused. Apparently, vide Exh.129 in the said Special Case an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.was preferred by the applicant for recalling of all the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Said application was kept pending for the say of the prosecution i.e.the Central Bureau of Investigation as the counsel for the C.B.I.was not present. During the pendency of the said application Exh.129, an application for adjournment was made and the matter was adjourned. By that time, the evidence of P.W.Nos. 1 and 2 was already over and apparently PW No.3 was under cross-examination. Subsequently, P.W.No.3 was cross-examined and the matter was again adjourned.
(4) Taking exception to such conduct of the Presiding Officer as to not passing an order on Exh.129 and not allowing the said application for recalling of the witnesses then examined, apparently, the applicant accused preferred an application for transfer of the case from that particular court to some other Special Court competent to deal with the Anti Corruption matters
appln-380-12
instituted by the C.B.I.
(5) This Court has gone through the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai and specifically paragraph Nos. 17,18, 19 and 20 of the impugned order. Considering the scope of this matter for transferring any of the pending case from one court to another Court, there is nothing to entertain the said request. Needless to mention that the concerned Court, which is seized of the special case, is required to deal with Exh.129 or any other pending application according to law. However, there is no case made out for transfer of the matter from the concerned Court. In the result, there is nothing to entertain the present application for transfer and same is accordingly dismissed.
(A.R.JOSHI,J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for transfer of a pending special case due to dissatisfaction with the conduct of the presiding officer regarding recalling witnesses merits entertaining the transfer request.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kashinath Jadhav
The Union of India
A.R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
