Barkat Ali Zaidi - (1.) -Heard Sri B. B. Paul, counsel for the applicant and Sri Satish Trivedi, senior advocate, assisted by Sri R. P. Dwivedi, counsel for the opp. party Nos. 4 to 7.
(2.) A case (S. T. No. 368 of 2007), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and Section 120B is pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge/Spl. Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Agra. Complainant party wants the transfer of her case on the following grounds. The Presiding Judge, in whose Court, the case is pending, was earlier in Court No. 13, who after his transfer as a Special Judge, has taken this case with him. As regards, the transfer of the case to the Court of E.C. Act, where the presiding officer has taken charge, it is not an unusual practice for part-heard cases being transferred alongwith with the presiding officer. There is no substance in this contention. As regards, the allegation that two of the accused went into the Chamber and were seen coming out with smiling faces, this is the usual kind of allegations, which are made in the transfer, when nothing substantial is available. Besides as will appear from the report of the presiding officer, the applicant was not in Court on that date, and she could not, therefore, have seen the accused coming out from the Presiding Officer's Chamber.
(3.) AS regards the allegations that in his statement P.W. Sanjay gave his address, which was different, given in the F.I.R. and the presiding Judge did not take notice despite being informed about it, the Judge has denied the allegation that no such plea was raised before him in any case. If the witness has given a different address, it may or may not be a matter of any consequence, which fact will have to be determined at the trial and this cannot be a ground for transfer. As regards, that the statement of P.W. Sanjay was recorded in the absence of the two accused, who were in jail, it is for the accused to complain about the same and the complainant can have no grouse in this re;