- (1.) Permission to delete Respondents 2 & 3 from the cause title of the petition granted. Their names should be struck off. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta the learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan is present on being called by us having regard to the urgency of the matter.
(2.) It appears that the petitioner who is the accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar in Criminal Case No. 27/73 was exempted from appearance because of his personal physical disability. However, at the conclusion of the evidence when the question of recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came up the learned Additional Sessions Judge required his presence. He could not remain present because both his legs are amputed (sic) and he is totally bedridden. An application was made on 5.5.95 explaining his absence and requesting that his statement be recorded through Shri T.N. Bhargav, Advocate, Alwar. In the alternative it was prayed that a person may be appointed for the purpose of giving replies at the expense of the applicant- accused. The learned Judge, however, by an order dated 7.8.95 cancelled his bail for non-appearance and directed arrest warrants to issue. Separate proceedings were also directed to issue under Section 446 Cr.P.C. against the surety. Thereupon counsel for the accused presented an application that the accused desired to move transfer. That application was also dismissed. Hence, the present Transfer Petition.
(3.) We must immediately state that the procedure adopted by the learned advocate for the accused is difficult to appreciate. The statement of the accused was required to be recorded to give him an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him on the record of the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was, therefore, desirous of his presence. The request made to him was to adjourn the case so that he could be brought in a medical van and the aforesaid prayers do not appear to have been projected. The learned Judge was disinclined to adjourn the matter any further since it was a very old case. The proper course would have been to request the learned Judge to resort to Section 285 or the anology thereof for recording the statement of the accused. Instead of so doing for no valid reasons the learned Advocate for the accused sought transfer and even made this application, We deplore it. We, therefore, dismiss this application.;