V.S. DAVE, J.—This transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner praying that case pending before the court below may kindly be transferred to any court of competent jurisdiction in any of the District of Rajasthan.The case referred to in the prayer of which transfer has been prayed is a Criminal Appeal No. 13/89, Manindar Kumar and Ors Vs. State of Raj. pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur for an offence under Sec. 325/34 I.P.C.

2. The petitioner- in his petition stated that his appeal was listed for arguments along with the connected appeal filed by Ravindar Kumar on 24.6.89. An application for exemption was moved by co-accused Bhagwat Swaroop, Ravindar Kumar and the petitioner Manindar Kumar. The application of Bhagwat Swaroop was allowed, bailable warrants were issued against Ravindar Kumar but warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner and his bail bonds were ordered to be forfiled by the learned Appellate Judge, named Shri Brij Lal Bundel, Sessions Judge, Dholpur, respondent No. 2. It is sub-mitted that Shri Bundel passed the order mala fiedly as he had grudge against the petitioner as the petitioner who happened to be General Secretary of the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association and was instrumental in getting a resolution passed against Shri Bundel by the members of Rajasthan High Court Bar Association condemning his action regarding an incident which took place in Barmer when he was posted there. The petitioner submitted that on August 30, 1989 when co-accused Ravindar Kumar had appeared in the court of Shri Bundel latter stated in the open court that he will send Manindar Kumar behind the Bars on that day because he has now a chance to send him behind the Bars. On asking by Ravindra Kumar as to what is the reason, respondent No. 2 stated that Manindar Kumar had made several statements against him regarding Barmer incident and had got resolutions passed from Rajasthan High Court Bar Association. The petitioners grievance therefore, is that the Presiding Officer is biased against him and he has no hope for getting justice from that court.

3. This application was sent for comments of non-petitioner No. 2 under the orders of Honble Mrs. Kapur J. dated 12.9.89 which have been received from the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide his letter dated 16.11.89. The complainant also put in appearance through Shri S.K. Gupta Advocate.

4. Arguments were heard and the explanation submitted by Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, Shri Brij Lal Bundel, has been perused.

5. Before I proceed to examine the merits of this application I may at the outset mention that this application ought not to have been listed in the court even by the Registry as the provisions of S. 407 Cr.P.C. have not been properly complied with. Condition precedent to filing an application under S. 407 Cr. P.C. is filing an application for such transfer before the Sessions Judge and its rejection. Proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 407 Cr.P.C. reads as under.-

"Provided that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him."

6. It could be argued by the learned counsel that he has used the words transfer the case to other court of competent jurisdiction in any of the District of State of Rajasthan, would not make ipso facto on application for transfer of the case outside the district so as to circumvent the aforesaid provisions of law, unless it was first-shown that there was a good ground for transferring the case out side the District. On the entire application the petitioner has not said a word about the learned District and Sessions Judge of the District as to why he should not hear the appeals and nothing has been mentioned that he approached him in the first instance and rejected the application. Secondly, every application under S. 407 Cr.P.C. for an ord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document