Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 712
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
B.A. Patil, J.
Mohammed Akhil Mahammadajim Shaikh – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka By Hubli Suburban Police Station – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 102486 of 2018, 102487 of 2018
Decided On : 12-07-2019
V.G. Patil, Adv., Sadiq N. Goodwala, Adv., Seema Shiva Naik, Adv.
The accused cannot seek production of documents as a matter of right and must specify the relevance of the documents to the subject matter. Transfer should not be allowed when the trial is at an advanced stage.
Headnote:
Transfer of Sessions Case - Section 407 Cr.P.C. - Section 91 and Section 233(3) of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
Accused filed petitions under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. to transfer Sessions Case No.109/2007 and to quash an order. The case involved the forcible dragging, robbery, and grievous injuries to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petitions, stating that the accused's application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was filed with the intention to delay the trial and that the judge's observations did not indicate bias or prejudice. The court also noted that the trial was at an advanced stage and transferring the case would cause further delay.
Issues: The issues involved the transfer of the sessions case and the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for production of documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the accused cannot seek production of documents as a matter of right and must specify the relevance of the documents to the subject matter. The court also highlighted that the judge's observations did not indicate bias and that transfer should not be allowed when the trial is at an advanced stage.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed as they lacked merit.
JUDGMENT :
B.A.Patil, J.
Crl.P. 102487/2018 is filed by accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7 under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to transfer Sessions Case No.109/2007 pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Court, Hubballi to any other Court District and Sessions Court, within Dharwad District.
2. Crl.P. No.102486/2018 is also filed by the same petitioners praying to quash the order dated 15.12.2018 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hubli, on an application under Section 91 read with Section read with Section 233(3) of Cr.P.C., in the above said sessions case.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. Since both the petitions arise out of the same Sessions Case, and they are inter-linked with each other, in order to avoid repetition of the facts and the law, both are heard together and by virtue of this common order they are disposed off.
5. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 25.05.2005, between 7.45 a.m. to 8.15 a.m. opposite to old bus stand near Renuka Hotel, accused Nos.1 to 4 dragged the complainant forcibly inside the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.MH-01 3643 and proceeded towards Bijapur road and after travelling for 10 to 20 kilometers, the accused threw the chilli powder in the eyes of the complainant and removed his dress and robbed four kgs. of gold from his bag and also cash, gold chain, finger rings and mobile set, and they also gave threat to the complainant and they pushed him from the moving Tata Sumo vehicle in order to take away his life. Complainant suffered grievous injuries and he came to the police station and filed the complaint.
6. Thereafter, an investigation was conducted and after completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was laid against accused Nos.1 to 8. Charge was framed and 24 witnesses were came to be examined. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused also examined defence witnesses and when the matter was posted for arguments, petitioners/accused filed an application under Section 91 read with sub-section (3) of Section 233 of Cr.P.C. is filed praying to direct P.W.24 investigating officer to produce concerned documents and ten pieces of gold before the Court. The said application was contested by the prosecution by filing objection. After hearing, the learned District Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/accused by order dated 15.12.2018. Challenging the said order, the petitioners/accused are before this Court.
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused that the learned District Judge has expressed his opinion on merits of the case and, as such it is not proper on the part of that Court to hear the said sessions case and as such they have also asked for transfer of the said case. It is his further contention that the Court has already formed an opinion and the petitioners/accused apprehend that they may not get justice at the hands of the said Court. It is his further submission that the apprehension as to bias as against an accused is a good ground for seeking transfer of the case from the said learned District & Sessions Judge. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chattisgarh and Others, (2007) 3 SCC 62. It is his further contention that non-recovery of gold by P.W.24 is a crucial aspect in order to determine the case of the petitioners/accused and to falsify the case of the complainant and the police. The said documents and gold is very important to decide the case of the accused. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petitions, set aside the order dated 15.12.2018 and to transfer the said sessions case to some other court.
8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the deposition of P.W.24, the Inves
