Decided on June 28,1973

Kulamani Mohapatra Appellant
State Of Orissa And Two Ors. Respondents


G.K.Misra, J. - (1.) NO notice has been served on opposite party No. 3. Such a notice is, however, not necessary. If accused No. 3 himself wanted to have transfer he could have filed an application. The Petitioner filed this application on two grounds: (i) The Additional Sessions Judge before whom twenty cases of the same nature alleging misappropriation against the Petitioner are pending, has decided one case and has convicted the Petitioner imposing a substantive sentence of imprisonment besides fine. The Petitioner apprehends that the Additional Sessions Judge will take the same view in all the cases. That is how the Petitioner is prejudiced. (ii) All these cases are from Khurda area and were initially on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. It would be convenient for the accused to conduct the cases at Bhubaneswar rather than at Puri.
(2.) THIS application is a frivolous one and was intended to delay the trial of the sessions cases. The fact that the Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the Petitioner in one case has no bearing on the other cases of similar nature. The Addl. Sessions Judge is to form an opinion on the evidence in each individual case and pass necessary orders. He is not prejudiced against the Petitioner merely because he has passed an order of conviction in one case. If the Addl. Sessions Judge would have continued at Puri this application should have been dismissed. But Shri N.P. Mohapatra, Addl. Sessions Judge, who tried one of the cases has already been transferred as Addl. Sessions Judge, Sundargarh. By virtue of the transfer of the Addl. Sessions Judge these cases cannot be heard by him. Though the first objection was frivolous necessarily these cases will be tried by some other Judge. If the contention of Mr. Dhal is accepted, obviously there will be twenty Judges at Puri to try each case separately. Mr. Dhal, however, contends that the cases may be tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge. Bhubaneswar as it would be convenient for the Petitioner. This contention is equally frivolous. The Petitioner belongs to Khurda area. It is immaterial whether he is tried at Puri or at Bhubaneswar. Khurda is almost equidistant from both the places. As however; the cases were originally on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, there is no harm if the cases are tried by him. Such a transfer is allowed not on the ground of convenience to the Petitioner but on administrative reasons. This case may therefore be transferred to the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. Though not required under law it is better that he finishes case after case. After finishing each case he will dictate the judgment, keep the judgment under seal and take up the next case. Ultimately he will deliver all the judgments in one day after finishing all the cases. The Assistant Sessions Judge would primarily devote himself to the trial of these cases continuously as far as practicable and dispose of all cases as quickly as possible. This direction may hamper him in attending to other civil work; but there is no other alternative.
(3.) FOR reasons mentioned above, the case is transferred to the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. The Misc. Case is allowed. The record of the case be sent back at once to the Assistant Sessions Judge. Bhubaneswar. The other thirteen cases which are pending with the Addl. Sessions Judge. Puri, may be transferred to the Assistant Sessions Judge. Bhubaneswar.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.