- (1.) BY this transfer petition filed u/s. 407 Cr. P. C. , the petitioners want to get the Sessions Case No. 9/1992 u/s. 302/34 IPC pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. l, Jodhpur transferred to any of the Sessions court, outside the city of Jodhpur.
(2.) THE petitioner is facing trial in a murder case in session's case no. 90/92, which is now fixed for final hearing on 10. 5. 1993. This petition is pending since 6. 2. 1993 and reply has also been filed. The case was adjourned on 30. 3. 93, 9. 4. 93 and 19. 4. 93. Mr. Mohd. Sahid Ansari appeared and sought adjournment submitting that he will seek no further adjournment in future as the case is fixed for final hearing on 21. 4. 93 at trial court. The case was ordered to be listed on 21. 4. 93 but it was listed on 29. 4. 93, and after hearing the arguments of the parties the case ordered to be listed for dictation of order on 4. 5. 93. It has come up before me today. The case of the petitioner, who are facing murder trial is that the complainant party has influence and by wide publicity in the news papers tried to give the incident a communal colour. It has also been stated that looking to the conduct of the complainant party, the petitioners have a reasonable apprehension that they will not get fair justice in the city of Jodhpur and, therefore, the case may be transferred to some other District Court for final hearing. An affidavit has also been filed by Mohd. Sayed Ansari in support of the petition. On behalf of the State, a reply has also been filed by the Special Public Prosecutor stating that the petitioner has tried to conceal the material facts that on almost similar grounds his transfer petition to other State was rejected on 1. 2. 93 by the Supreme Court. It is also stated that the news-items published in the papers are merely condolence messages and the complainant did not try to give and communal colour to the matter. It has also been stated that challan against the petitioner was filed on 23. 10. 91 for the incident dt. 23. 8. 91, charges were framed on 15. 1. 92 and several adjournments were given to the counsel for the petitioners. The evidence of the prosecution was closed on 16. 9. 92 any the accused person were examined on 23. 9. 92. The case was adjourned from time to time on the request of accused to produce defence evidence. Ultimately on 19. 12. 1992, the accused- petitioners expressed their inability to produce defence evidence. It has been further stated that the accused also moved a transfer application before Hon'ble Supreme Court for transfer of the case from the State of Raj. to some other State on almost similar grounds but that too was dismissed on 1. 2. 93. It has been prayed that the transfer application may be dismissed. I have heard both the parties on 29. 4. 93 and the case is listed for dictation of order. Today Mr. M. C. Bhoot, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. M. Singhvi, Special Public Prosecutor are also present. I have also perused the material on record and the written submissions of petitioner.
(3.) IT is true that in the matter of transfer the general principle is that the justice must not only be done but must also be seems to be done should be taken into consideration. In the instant case there is nothing on record that the atmosphere and conditions are such that the Judge is not in a position to decide the case except mere allegation that the incident was sensational and given wide coverage by the local news papers, which to my mind by itself cannot be made a basis for transfer of the case that too when the trial has been completed and the case is ripe for final arguments. The petitioners have not alleged any bias or partiality on the part of the Presiding Officer. That apart the grounds raised were available to the petitioners earlier from very beginning but they were not raised though the petitioners are approaching the High Court on one pretext or the other and thereby delayed the trial particularly when this Court directed to complete the trial at the earliest while disposing the first bail application. Moreso, the transfer application for transfer of the case to other State on almost similar grounds including the grounds of naming the road and publicity filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed by their lordships of the Supreme Court. Under these circumstances I find no compelling reasons which goes to show that the petitioner will not get fair and impartial justice by the same court. In the result, the transfer petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. It is stated that the case fixed before the trial court on 10. 5. 1993. It is expected that the same will be decided at the earliest. . ;