Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rohtashva Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Others - TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. 261 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9342 (10 May 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Crl. Misc. Transfer application No.261 of 2006.

Rohtashva Kumar.....                           Applicant.

State of U.P and others    .              Opp. Parties

Hon. K.N.Sinha,J.

Heard leaned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A and peruse the order  of the Sessions Judge and allegation set forth in paras 7 to 12 of the affidavit.

        The present  transfer application was moved  firstly on the  ground that  in spite of the fact that accused has obtained an order for cross-examining  PW-1 and PW-2. They did not cross-examine those witnesses and secondly  that the opposite party No.2 said in the  village  that ' they talked with the Presiding Officer and they are not in need to examine and cross-examine the witnesses' and had taken back the money deposited by them. This averment is put forward  in para 12 of the affidavit. Similarly  in paras 10 and 11 of the affidavit, it has been deposed that the accused  would not accept the decision of Panch and they would be acquitted by the court by expending Rs.50,000/-.

    So far as  not examining the witnesses, it is  matter for the accused whether  they cross-examine or not.  Their liberty stands closed.

     So far as anything  said in the village, the Presiding Officer  has nothing  to do  that what  any one  talked out side the court or in the village.

    Learned counsel for the applicant  has placed reliance in the case of  Ram Narayan  Vs. Rakesh Tandon and others,(2006)(2)ADJ 653(All).  I have gone through  the facts of the said case, which are absolutely different.  In the said case the revisional court decided the revision in spite of the knowledge that  the transfer application was moved  before the District Judge, hence the said judgement does not apply.

        The transfer application has got no force an it is hereby dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.