SHRI KANT TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant, for the respondent no.2 and AGA for the respondent no.1 and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is a petition for transfer of the criminal case arising out of crime no.17A/2010, under sections 147, 427, 504, 506 and 307 IPC, police station Kotwali Farrukhabad, district Farrukhabad from district Farrukhabad to some other district. The learned counsel for the applicant Laik Ahmad submitted that the District and Sessions Judge Farrukhabad is under the influence of respondent no.2 because the District and Sessions Judge Farrukhabad had held a meeting organised by the District Legal Services Authority, Farrukhabad in the house of one Muzaffar Husain, who is a very influential person. Due to that influence, the District and Sessions Judge Farrukhabad decided the criminal revision no. 119/2010 against the applicant by changing the date 26.6.2010 to 9.6.2010. It is also alleged that the father of the aforesaid Muzaffar Husain is a local BSP leader, and a final report in the cross case was submitted on his influence. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no. 2 had been seen in the chamber of the presiding officer on several occasions, therefore, the applicant apprehends that he will not get justice in district Farrukhabad. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith a copy of the program of the District Legal Services Authority, Farrukhabad, according to which on 6.5.2010 a legal literacy camp was organised in Zardauzi Ka Karkhana, Farrukhabad. It may not be out of context to mention that in the program prepared by the District Legal Services Authority (Annexure no. 1 to the supplementary affidavit) it is nowhere mentioned that the place where the legal literacy camp was organised is owned by Muzaffar Husain.
(3.) A comment of the District and Sessions Judge Farrukhabad has been obtained, which is on record, who has very categorically denied the fact that he had participated in the legal literacy camp on 6.5.2010. He has further clarified that he was on leave on 6.5.2010. The District and Sessions Judge has very categorically denied the fact that the respondent no.2 used to visit his chamber. He is not even known to C.J.M. personally. In view of specific denial by the District and Sessions Judge Farrukhabad, the allegations made in the transfer application do not appear to be true.;