Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
Vijay Dhandapani
Versus
Sreeja Ravi
Crl.O.P.Nos.12242 to 12245 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2009
Decided on: 05-08-2009
Transfer of Criminal Cases - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 91, 311, 309 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 91, 311, and 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deal with the production of documents, recalling of witnesses, and adjournment of cases. The court emphasized the importance of fair trial and the need to prevent dilatory tactics in the judicial process. The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's attempts to protract the case and the trial judge's liberal granting of adjournments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in four criminal cases, sought transfer of the cases from the trial court to another court, alleging lack of reasonable opportunity to defend himself and bias on the part of the trial judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's requests for adjournments and petitions under Cr.P.C. were attempts to protract the case, and the apprehension expressed by the petitioner was not reasonable.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's plea for transfer, the trial judge's conduct, and the fairness of the trial proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's attempts to protract the case and the trial judge's liberal granting of adjournments, leading to the conclusion that the transfer petitions lacked merit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the four criminal original petitions seeking transfer of the cases, concluding that they were attempts to protract the case and lacked merit.
These criminal original petitions have been filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C to withdraw and transfer the cases in S.T.C.Nos.2865, 2867, 2866 and 2868/2007 from the file of the learned XII Judge, Small Causes Court (Special Magistrate) to the file of any other court in Chennai competent to try the cases. The accused in all the four STCs is the petitioner in these criminal OPs. He has pleaded for transfer of the cases from the present trial court to any other court on the ground that he was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the criminal cases pending against him and that the Presiding Officer of the trial court expressed her decision in the open court to convict him.
2. Mr. S. Rayhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the matter was taken up for continuation of trial by the trial court, the petitioner filed petitions under Section 91 of Cr.P.C to direct the respondent/complainant to produce three documents which were considered to be vital for the defence case of the petitioner herein/accused and a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling PW-1 to cross-examine him relating to those documents regarding the production of which petitions under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C were filed; that such petitions were filed separately in all the above said STCs; that the learned XII Judge, Small Causes Court (Special Magistrate) dismissed all those petitions, pursuant to which the petitioner in all the criminal Ops/accused in all the above said STCs filed copy applications to get certified copies of the orders for filing necessary revision before the High Court; that the learned XII Judge of Small Causes Court(Special Magistrate), who initially adjourned the case to a couple of hearings so as to enable the petitioner/accused to get the certified copies and file necessary revision before the High Court, at last refused to grant any more adjournment and dismissed the petitions filed by him in all the above said STCs on 17.06.2009; that before dismissing the said petitions filed under Section 309 Cr.P.C, the trial judge openly declared her intention to convict the petitioner/accused and that hence the petitioner/accused was constrained to approach this court stating that he lost his faith in the trial court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the reasonable request made on behalf of the petitioner/accused to grant adjournment so as to enable him to file revisions before the High Court against the orders passed in the petitions filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C and 311 of Cr.P.C was turned down by the trial court; that besides refusing to grant adjournments the trial judge declared in the open court that the accused would be punished and he could file appeals against his conviction and that the same would reveal the fact that the trial judge has already made up her mind to convict the petitioner/accused.
4. On the other hand, Mr. T. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant in all these petitions would contend that the present petitions are the continuation of the efforts made by the petitioner/accused person to stall the proceedings and drag on the case as long as possible and that when his attempt to drag on the proceedings was sought to be thwarted, the petitioner has come forward with these petitions vexatiously for the transfer of the cases. The learned counsel for the respondent also drew the attention of the court to the fact that all these cases had been originally pending on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and the same were withdrawn from the file of the said court and transferred to the file of the XII Judge, Small Causes Court (Special Magistrate) by an order of this court dated 210. 2007 made in Crl.O.P.Nos.28860 to 28863/2007; that the said transfer order was made at the instance of the petitioner herein/accused; that subsequent to the said order of transfer, the case resulted in the conviction of the petitioner herein/accu
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
