Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CNR No. DLNT01-004603-2023
TP (Criminal) No. 8/2023
State Vs. Akash @ Nanu
03.05.2023
Fresh transfer petition/application u/s 408 CrPC
received by way of self assignment. It be checked and
registered.
Present : Sh. Kamaldeep, Ld. Counsel for the accused
/applicant.
Ms. Yogita Kaushik, Ld. Addl. PP (substitute) for the
State.
This is the application u/s 408 CrPC seeking transfer
of the case bearing SC No. 687/2021 FIR No.765/2021 PS
Jahangir Puri, titled as State Versus Akash @ Nanu & Ors., from
the court of Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Ld. ASJ/Specl. Judge (NDPS),
North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi to some other court of
competent jurisdiction.
Heard the counsel for the applicant/petitioner as well
as Ld. Addl. PP (substitute) for the State.
In the transfer application/petition, it is stated that
after framing of the charge against the applicant/accused on
05.11.2022, the matter was listed for prosecution evidence for
01.02.2023. However, on that date, the Ld. Presiding Officer was
on leave and the matter was adjourned for 03.04.2023. On
03.04.2023, advocates were on strike and the matter was
adjourned for 04.09.2023 i.e. after five months despite requesting
by the applicant/accused persons to grant short date as he is in
J/C since his arrest. The early hearing application of the applicant
Contd.....2/-
-- 1 of 4 --
- 2 -
was listed on 26.04.2023 and when the counsel for the applicant
appeared before the court and sought pass over as the senior
counsel was on the way, the court adjourned the matter for
hearing for 23.05.2023. The applicant/accused stated that the
court is biased against him and granting longer dates of hearings.
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP (substitute) for the
State submits that the court gives the dates of hearing as per the
register maintained with it. It is the duty of the counsel to appear
for arguments on the date fixed by the court.
I have perused the record.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as
Chakraverti Sandill V. Manju Jain 2001 (89) DLT 741, has held
as under:
“mere apprehensions are not sufficient for litigant to seek
transfer of the matter from one court to another.”
In Harsh Mander v. Union of India and Anr. bearing
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1045/2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as under:
“a litigant should not be permitted and allowed to
question a Judge on perceived bias especially after
hearing has commenced and orders on different dates
have been passed and normally, this should be left to the
Judge himself who is bound by the oath of office to
administer justice to all persons alike without fear, favour
and prejudice. The litigant without any firm basis, cannot
be permitted to raise such objection on the basis of the
court hearing.”
In the case of Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh
MANU/SC/0107/1995, where certain unfounded allegations
Contd...3/-
-- 2 of 4 --
- 3 -
were levelled by an advocate, who could not get the desired relief
from a Judge, their lordships of the Supreme Court held as
under:-
“The transfer petition cast aspersions on the Judge of the
High Court in the discharge of his judicial functions and
had the tendency to scandalise the court. It was an attempt
to brow-beat the Judge of the High Court and cause
interference in the conduct of a fair trial. It also tend to
bring the authority and administration of law into
disrespect. It was most unbefitting for an advocate to
make imputations against the Judge only because he does
not get the expected result, which according to him was
fair and reasonable. No system of justice can tolerate such
unbridled licence on the part of a person, be he a lawyer,
to permit himself the liberty of scandalising a Court by
casting unwarranted, uncalled for and unjustified
aspersions on the integrity, ability, impartiality or fairness
of a Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions as it
amounts to an interference with the due course of
administration of justice”.
The applicant himself mentioned in the transfer
application that on 05.11.2022, the charges were framed and
thereafter the matter was listed on 01.02.2023 when the court
was on leave. Subsequently, the matter was listed for 03.04.2023
but on that date, advocates were on strike and the matter was
adjourned for 04.09.2023. Subsequently, the applicant moved an
application for early hearing, which was listed on 26.04.2023 but
on that day for the arguments on the said early hearing
application, senior counsel did not appear despite being granted
pass over and therefore the matter was adjourned for 23.05.2023.
All these facts narrated by the petitioner/applicant himself in the
application show that there was no mala fide on the part of the
court. It was not the fault of the court, if the advocates were on
Contd...4/-
-- 3 of 4 --
- 4 -
strike or if arguing counsel did not appear despite the case being
passed over qua the arguments on the early hearing application
and after waiting for the counsel, the court adjourned the early
hearing application for 23.05.2023.
In view of the facts and circumstances, the
discussions made above and the law discussed in the above
judgments, no ground for transfer of the said case FIR
No.765/2021 PS Jahangir Puri is made out. Transfer petition filed
by the applicant/accused is dismissed. Nothing stated herein shall
tantamount to an expression on the merits of the case.
Copy of this order be sent to Ld. ASJ/Spcl. Judge
(NDPS), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi. Transfer petition
file be consigned to record room.
(Madhu Jain)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
North District, Rohini Courts
Delhi/ 03.05.2023
-- 4 of 4 --