- (1.) This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner as per provisions of Section 407 of the Cr. P. C. praying for transfer of the Sessions Case No. 15 of 2003 pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Asansol. Case of the petitioner is that he along with others are facing trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Asansol in connection with Sessions Case No. 15 of 2003 for the alleged commission of offence under "Sections 498A/304B of the I. P. C. According to the petitioner, he is an old man aged about 70 years and is suffering from various old age ailments including heart problems. On 02.01.2005 as the petitioner suffered a serious chest pain, so he was admitted in the S. D. Hospital, Asansol and as such he could not attend Court on 04.01.2005. For this reason the petitioner prayed for time for two months for his treatment. But, the learned Judge was pleased to direct the surety to produce the petitioner on 05.01.2005. As the petitioner was unable to appear before the learned trial Court on 05.01.2005, warrant of arrest was issued against him and proceeding was started against the surety. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revisional application wherein an order was passed directing the petitioner to surrender before the Court below and pursuant to that direction the petitioner ultimately was released on bail. Again on 23.11.2004 a date was fixed for examination of the witnesses. On that day the petitioner was present but due to the cease work of the local Bar Association, the case could not be taken up and subsequently the date was fixed on 24.11.2004 for examination of the witnesses. On that day, as the petitioner was not present so he was represented by his Advocate under Section 317 of the Cr. P. C. The learned Judge fixed 04.01.2005 for examination of the witnesses. The manner in which the learned Judge was conducting the case, gave an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that Justice will be denied to him if the trial takes place in the said Court. As such, the petitioner filed a Criminal Misc. Case under Section 408 of the Cr. P. C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Burdwan praying for transfer of the case from the Court of the learned trial Judge. But, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the said prayer. The petitioner has now come up before this Court by invoking the provisions of Section 407 Cr. P. C. and has prayed for transfer of the case concerned from the Court of the learned trial Judge to any other Court situated at Asansol.
(2.) I have heard the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the learned Advocate for the State as well as the learned Advocate for the O.P./ de facto complainant. It is the admitted position that a Sessions Case is pending before the learned trial Court against the petitioner and others and in that case charge has already been framed and the matter is fixed for recording of evidence. At this stage the petitioner has come up before this Court for transferring the case from the file of the learned trial Court to any other Court situated at Asansol. Main contention of the petitioner is that on a particular date as he was sick, so he could not attend the Court and in spite of that the learned trial Judge was pleased to issue warrant of arrest against him. Due to this, the petitioner apprehends that he will not get fair Justice in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Asansol. But, simply because of the fact that the learned trial Judge was pleased to issue warrant of arrest against a particular accused, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge was biased in passing such an order. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order it is always open for him to challenge the same and in fact the petitioner actually challenged the said order before this Court. We should not forget that a trial Judge is obliged statutorily to dispose of the case as early as possible by observing the procedure laid down in the law. He is not meant for granting adjournment at the whims of the accused persons. Of course, the Court is to consider the prayer for adjournment in a judicious way. Simply because the prayer for adjournment was rejected and warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge acted in a partial way against the interest of the petitioner. It is very much within the power of the trial Judge to take effective steps for securing attendance of the accused persons as well as the witnesses for early conclusion of the trial. I find no illegality in the order, as passed by the learned trial Judge. Moreover, that chapter of issuance of warrant of arrest is now closed as this Court on earlier occasion intervened and directed the learned trial Judge to release the accused petitioner on bail on his surrender before him. Since, then the matter is pending before the learned trial Judge and he is taking steps by fixing dates for examination of the witnesses. I fall to understand as to how the petitioner could conceive that the learned trial Judge by fixing such dates has actually passed those orders in a partial way. The attitude of the accused petitioner is highly objectionable and must be condemned. If an accused is aggrieved by an order of a trial Judge and if on that basis a case is transferred from the file of the trial Judge, then the High Court will be flooded with such petitions and there is every possibility that the provisions of Section 407 of the Cr. P. C. will be misused by some unscrupulous persons which should not be allowed to be done under any circumstances. From the materials-on-record, I find no illegality in the orders passed by the learned trial Judge.
(3.) Therefore, from my above discussion I am of opinion, that there is no substance in the petition, as filed by the petitioner and I have got no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has thoroughly failed to show that a fair and impartial trial cannot be held in the Court of the learned trial Judge. As such, I find no merit in this application and in my considered opinion same should be rejected.;