ORDER :

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that in the year 1998, number of FIRs were lodged in connection with an incident of deer hunting, involving stringent laws like Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1972’) and the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1959’) etc.

3. The present controversy arises out of an F.I.R., bearing F.I.R. No.93(26)/1998 dated 02.10.1998 registered with the Forest Department against Salman Khan alongwith Saif Ali Khan, Neelam, Tabbsum @ Tabu, Sonali and Dushyant Singh, who, in pursuance of a complaint, were accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur under the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; subsequent thereto, cognizance was taken and evidence was recorded, followed by framing of charges on 20.02.2006.

4. Eventually however, after due trial, vide judgment dated 05.04.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur in criminal case No.66/2011 (State Vs. Salman Khan & Ors.), the accused – Salman Khan (present petitioner) was convicted under Section 9/51 of the Act of 1972, and a sentence of five years imprisonment was awarded to him along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in the event of default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo an additional three months of imprisonment. Vide the said judgment, the remaining accused persons, i.e. respondents no. 3 to 7, namely, Saif Ali Khan, Neelam, Tabbu, Sonali Bendre and Dushyant Singh were acquitted of all charges levelled against them.

5. The present petitioner thereafter filed an appeal against the aforementioned judgment dated 05.04.2018, which was registered as Criminal Appeal no.18/2018 before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, which is under adjudication. However, the sentence was suspended during the pendency of the appeal. In the meanwhile, the said judgment was challenged by the State, being aggrieved of the acquittal of the respondents no. 3 to 7 herein, by preferring a Criminal Leave to Appeal before this Hon'ble Court bearing No. 311/2018 (State of Raj. Vs. Saif Ali Khan & Ors.), which is pending before this Court.

6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that against the acquittal of the respondents No.3 to 7, the complainant/respondent No.2 herein, also preferred an appeal, which is pending before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District.

7. Thus, these are the three offshoots of the litigation arising out of a single judgment, i.e. the aforementioned judgment dated 05.04.2018, namely, (i) an appeal by the complainant; (ii) appeal by the present petitioner and; (iii) a leave to appeal by the State, as already mentioned above.

8. In the present petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers regarding invocation of powers under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 27 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, seeking transfer of the litigation pending against the common impugned judgment dated 05.04.2018 at one place:-

"(i) Three Criminal Appeals, being Appeal nos. 18/2018 & Criminal Appeal filed by Complainant Punamchand relating to alleged offence under Wild Life (Protection) Act, and Criminal Appeal No.22/2017 relating to alleged offence under Arms Act, all pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District may please be transferred to this Hon'ble Court, Jodhpur, for consideration thereof with pending Criminal Leave to Appeal no.311/2018 - State of Raj. Vs. Saif Ali Khan & ors.

(ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner"

9. Mr. Anand Desai alongwith Mr. Hasti Mal