High Court of Kerala transferred a criminal trial from Sessions Court to Additional Sessions Court within the same district due to jurisdictional vacancy and workload, despite rejected claims of judge bias.
Case withdrawn from Sessions Court and transferred to 3rd Additional Sessions Court, Kasaragod to be disposed within set time limit.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/22ND PHALGUNA, 1935
Tr.P(Crl.).No. 23 of 2014 ()
----------------------------SC.NO. 97/2014 OF SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 & 3:
1. MUHAMMED NOUSHAD E.K,S/O.KUNHABDULLA, AGED 34 YEARS, BAITHUL FARSANA HOUSE, ANACHAL,
2. MUHAMMED RAMEES.E.K. @ RAMEES, S/O.ABDUL RASHEED,AGED 27 YEARS,
IDAKKAYIL HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM, NILESHWAR P.O., NILESHWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, THROUGH S.H.O. CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.SAREENA GEORGE
THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
Tr.P(Crl.).No. 23 of 2014
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.594/2013 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION ANNEX A2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.113/2014 OF SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD DATED 17/1/2014
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
sts
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.23 of 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 13th day of March, 2014
O R D E R
This transfer petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 and 3 in S.C.No.97/2014 on the files of the First Additional Sessions Court, Kasaragod, under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code').
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.23 of 2014
2
purpose of committing dacoity. The case was posted to 05.03.2014. The Sessions Judge at Kasaragod, is highly prejudiced against the petitioners and other accused persons. Some of the accused persons moved bail application as Crl.M.P.No.113/2014 before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, but the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 17.01.2014. While rejecting the prayer for bail, the learned Sessions Judge applauded magnanimity of the deceased. According to the Sessions Judge, the matter has reached in the eyes of every person in Kasaragod District, as well as throughout Kerala, and the society is not yet recovered from the inhuman acts of the petitioners. The lower court approaches the case, as if the petitioners had committed the offence. In the court also, the learned Sessions Judge is Exhibiting such hostility towards the petitioners. So they apprehend that, they will not get fair trial from the Sessions Court, Kasaragod. The media is also celebrating this case. It appears that the judicial
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.23 of 2014
3
officers at Kasaragod, are carried away by media reports. So the petitioners could not have an impartial trial in Kasaragod District. So they have no other option, except to file this petition, seeking the following relief:
“It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to transfer S.C.No.97/2014 pending on the file of Sessions Court, Kasaragod to any other Sessions Court in another district for trial and for further proceedings.”
and the learned State Public Prosecutor, who is appearing for the respondent.
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.23 of 2014
4
“On the reference cited I am to submit at the outset that I have no objection in transferring the Sessions Case No.97/2014 from the court presided by me either to any other Sessions Court in the district or to other districts. I have no personal affinity on the file. It happened to be on court presided by me for the reason that (1) Addl. District Court-I is without a regular presiding officer, (2) presiding officer of Addl. District Court is under orders of transfer and before departure from this station he may not be able to dispose of the case and (3) Addl. District Court -III is over burdened with work load at present with several cases in which accused are remand prisoners.
The allegation that I am highly prejudiced against the petitioners and other accused persons is baseless for
5
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.23 of 2014
the reason that the alleged grounds on which said allegation is made is on the basis of the order in Crl.M.P.113/2004(Annexure A-2). The said Crl.M.P was filed by accused Nos.2 and 4 who have not so far raised any allegation and the petitioners in the transfer petition are accused Nos.1 and 2 who are not the petitioners in Criminal M.P.113/2014 vide Annexure No.A2. The date of order in Annexure A2 is 17/1/2014 and the date of Transfer petition is 03/03/14.
The allegation that I am approaching the case with a presumption of guilt as against the petitioners is totally denied. The further allegation that I was exhibiting much hostility towards the petitioners is also baseless for the following reasons. (1). If I had any occasion to proceed against the petitioners on the premise that they are guilty of the offence, I would not have used the word cautiously prima facie in paragraph No.9 of Annexure 2. (2) I have not jumped into a pre trial conclusion neither in this case nor in any other cases so far disposed off by me. Regarding second allegation contained in ground B that I exhibited much hostility towards the petitioner is due to the reason that.
(1) That there was an enmass request by each and every accused for transferring all of them from the prison (Sub Jail, Hosdrug) to Centr5al Prison, Kannur, Considering the in between distance from Kannur to Kasaragod, the numeric strength of the accused and frequent law and order problem that is being experienced in the district of Kannur which is likely only to be on the higher side on the eve of election which result in frequent report by the Jail Authorities stating that due to want of police escorts the accused are unable to be produced. I answered the request of the accused stating that all of them cannot be accommodated at Kannur and even in that situation two of the accused were shifted to Central Prison, Kannur. This was found not palatable to the accused for the reason that better liberties and freedom are available in Central Prison, Kannur and that may not be available in the other Sub Jails since certain restrictions imposed due to certain
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.23 of 2014
6
untoward incidents.
(2) There was a request for larger adjournment of the case on which occasion I said to the counsel concerned that granting adjournments at large intervals may not be possible in this case as this case is a time fixed one from the High Court and if we start late we may reach late as well. In order to avoid request for enlargements of time such a submission was made to the Advocates concerned and it in no way manifest either by spirit of words or attending situations hostility towards the petitioners.
(3) Regarding the allegation contained in ground 'C' of the transfer petition, I am to state that the said observation contained in Annexure A2 was the data which I could recollect from several reports from the police, and news dailies and when such reports are there it is read and appreciated by the public, enlargement of accused in such crimes on the technical reason that the final report is filed will only sent a wrong message to the society and it is in that context paragraph No.8 in Annexure A2 happened.
(4) Regarding ground 'D' it is a matter of inference for the Hon'ble High Court from the request of the transfer petitioners and on consideration of the report now submitted by me.
(5) Regarding ground 'E' that the media is celebrating is not known to me except the news paper information. The further allegation in ground 'E' that judicial officers at Kasaragod are carried away by media reports is basically unwarranted and without any justification.
(6) Regarding ground 'G', I have answered at the outset of this remarks and still I repeat that I have no objection in transferring the case from the court presided over by me to any other court either in the district or any other districts of the State.
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.23 of 2014
7
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.23 of 2014
8
to decide a case on account of the news items being published in respect of each incident in the media, giving undue importance for even small matters. Further Judicial Officers are expected to consider the case on the basis of the evidence available before that court and will not and should not be moved away by the media reports for the purpose of deciding the case as well. So, that cannot be taken as a ground for transfer a case from one district to another district, as claimed by the petitioners in the petition.
9
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.23 of 2014
Nos.8645/2014 & 8681/2014 and this court has dismissed the applications and directed the Principal Sessions Judge, or the Additional Sessions Judge, who is trying the case, to dispose of the case, within three months from the date of receipt of records on such committal. So it appears that, now committal proceedings is over and it is posted for framing charges. Though it was originally pending before the First Additional Sessions Court, Kasaragod, in view of the order passed by this court, now the case has been withdrawn to the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, for complying with the directions. It appears that, it is an attempt on the part of the petitioners to prolong the trial of the case and avoid trial before a particular court and nothing more in coming with an application for transfer, making unnecessary allegations against the presiding officer. So none of the allegations are sufficient for the purpose of transferring the case to some other court.
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.23 of 2014
10
learned Sessions Judge has expressed that, he has no objection in transferring the case. Even if a correct or just orders have been passed by that judge on the basis of the evidence, because of the allegations made in the petition, if it goes against the petitioners, it is likely to be interpreted otherwise. So in order to avoid such a contingency, this court feels that, it is better to transfer the case to the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kasaragod, for disposal where the number of cases pending is only 272 and there were only two custody cases pending disposal in that court. So the case S.C.No.97/2014 pending before Sessions Court, Kasaragod, is withdrawn and transferred to the 3rd Additional Sessions Court, Kasaragod, for disposal and the 3rd Additional Sessions Court, Kasaragod, is directed to dispose of the case, within the time limit provided by this court as per the common order in Bail Application Nos.8645/2014 and 8681/2014 giving priority to this case. With the above direction and observation the petition is
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.23 of 2014
11
disposed of. The Sessions Judge, Kasaragod, is directed to transfer the records to the 3rd Additional Sessions Court, Kasaragod, immediately, so that, that court can proceed with the trial of the case without delay. The office is directed to communicate this order to the Sessions Court, Kasaragod and 3rd Additional Sessions Court, Kasaragod, by fax immediately.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge
// True Copy //
P.A. to Judge
ss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations of bias and media prejudice warrant the transfer of the criminal trial to another court.
Whether observations in a bail order to different accused persons justify allegations of prejudice against the trial judge.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Muhammed Noushad E.K
Muhammed Ramees E.K
State of Kerala
K. Ramakrshnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
