Barkat Ali Zaidi - (1.) THE accused applicant, charged under Section 302, I.P.C., pending before Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jaunpur, wants his case transferred to some other Court.
(2.) HEARD Sri S. K. Dubey, advocate for the applicant and Mohd. Israil Siddiqui, Addl. Government Advocate for the State. The facts relating to this transfer application are that after the prosecution finished its argument on 12.3.2008, the defence counsel argued the next day, for half day, which could not be completed and the case was posted for 15.3.2008 for remaining arguments. The defence counsel argued the case during the whole prelunch session but failed to continue his arguments post-lunch on 15.3.2008 and on request, thereafter, made to adjourn the trial for 17.3.2008 for remaining arguments as his counsel expressed his inability to resume arguments. Presiding Judge scolded and threatened him, his counsel was forced to appear in the Court leaving a trial in another Court and the Judge in place of fixing 17.3.2008. fixed 23.3.2008 for submitting the written arguments on the request of his counsel. Since his counsel is said to have gone out of station, written arguments could not be submitted and subsequently on 25.3.2008 when his counsel filed an application to permit the applicant for filing written arguments by the date of judgment 31.3.2008, the presiding Judge declined. It will appear from the above narration, that dilatory tactics are being adopted by the counsel for the accused and unwarranted allegations are being made that the Presiding Officer scolded the accused because of the absence of the accused and said that the accused would be punished. No Judge, would say things like that and an Addl. Sessions Judge is usually a reasoned Judge who would never utter words like these. They are prima facie false allegations, and have been categorically denied by the Judge in his report. Arguments have already been made by the counsel for the accused twice for half day each, on two occasions. He wanted to file written argument for which opportunity was given to him, but he failed to file the same, and wants more time for that purpose which the Judge has rightly denied, because he did not file the written argument within the stipulated period. Repeated opportunities and that too for filing written arguments after oral arguments have already been advanced have failed to satisfy the counsel for the accused.
(3.) THE murder case has been pending for last four years and it must come to an end. No further time need be given for written arguments, and, if the counsel for the applicant so wants half day more for oral arguments may be given. With these observations the transfer application is rejected.;