K.C.SHARMA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The complainant-petitioner has filed this transfer petition seeking transfer of Sessions Case No. 17/2004 State v. Shyam Sunder and Ors. from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Ajmer, Camp Beawar to any other competent Court in Ajmer Division.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to some developments which took place during trial of the case has vehemently contended that the manner in which learned trial Judge is conducting trial has given rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that justice would not be done to him. According to him, the trial Judge seem to have adopted lop sided approach in the course of trial. He stated that petitioner was examined on behalf of the prosecution. His cross-examination continued for five days and runs into 40 pages. In such endless cross-examination, the petitioner was subjected to irrelevant questions, but the learned trial Court instead interrupting reprimanded the petitioner to answer every irrelevant question of the defence counsel. Learned counsel further submitted that on 7.8.2004 the learned trial Judge summoned petitioner's wife as a prosecution witness by issuing arrest warrant despite her serious ailment, inasmuch as she was suffering from acute gestroentritis and had been admitted in JLN Hospital, Ajmer and an application to this effect was also filed on 6.8.2004, supported by admission ticket of the said Hospital. However the learned trial Judge did not pay and heed to said application and summoned the petitioner's wife Smt. Gori Devi through arrest warrant without even making a reference to the application filed by him on 6.8.2004. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner has prayed for transfer of the above case on the ground that trial is not being condoned in a fair, impartial and forthright manner.
(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the transfer petition on the ground that the grounds on which transfer of the case is sought for are not sufficient. They argued that simply because petitioner was subjected to lengthy cross-examination or that his wife was summoned as a prosecution witness through arrest warrant, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused not the petitioner or that it has given rise to some apprehension that justice would to be done to him. In this back ground, it was argued that transfer petition deserves to be dismissed.;