P. D. KUDAL, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under sec. 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for transferring Sessions Case No. 17 of 1975, State vs. Lala Ram & Ors , pending in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sikar, presided over by Shri Jas Karan Dasani.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Shri Kumar Narain, a practising lawyer filed a Civil Suit against the Municipal Council, Sikar and other persons for perpetual injunction in the Court of Munsiff, Sikar. This suit was dismissed on 29-9-1970. A second suit was filed by him which was also dismissed on 12-12-1974. It is alleged that on 15-1-1975 some quarrel resulting in marpeet took place on the disputed way. A report of this incident was lodged by Vinod -Kumar s/o Kumar Narain at the Police Kotwali, Sikar In this report as many as 89 persons are alleged to have been involved. After due investigation, the police submitted challan against 14 persons only. Out of those 14 persons three persons are alleged to be absconding, and one is saide to have died and the remaining ten persons are facing trial, under secs. 395, 452 and 147, I. P. C. This trial is going on before the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar. The contentions of the present accused-petitioners are that they have reasonable apprehension in their mind that they will not get fair and equitable trial before the learned Sessions Judge. The main contention on which this apprehension has arisen in the minds of the accused-petitioners is that in another Sessions Case No. 74 of 1974, the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar (Shri Jas Karan Dasani) reproduced the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor as under *** Mr. Tibrewal, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that in the judgment the learned Sessions Judge has underlined these observations and has tried to give undue importance to the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor. It was also contended that, though the transfer petition was submitted before this Court, and a notice of the said application had been issued yet, the learned Sessions Judge showed undue haste in proceeding with the trial of the Sessions Case, though it was pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar for more than three years. The learned Advocate General was heard in this case. As the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor, which were reproduced in this transfer petition from the judgment in Sessions Case No. 74/1974, raise a serious question of law and order and the safety of the judicial officer, the learned Advocate General contended that if there is a general break in the maintenance of law and order, the Court should take note of it and proceed according to law.
(3.) MR. Khan, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, has contended that the majesty of law and the dignity of the Courts have to be maintained by the judicial officer, and they must act in a dispassionate manner in the dispensation of justice. He further contended that even in trying circumstances the judicial officers should keep restraint on themselves and keep in mind the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is to be presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise. He further contended that no opportunity should be afforded to the accused persons to harbour a bona fide impression that they are not likely to get justice from a particular judicial officer. Mr. Pareek, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, has opposed the transfer petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Amar Singh vs. Sadhu Singh (1); Gurcharan Dass vs. State of Rajasthan (2) and Ram Lal vs. Birdhi Lal Sethi (3 ). ;