High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rohtashva Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Others - TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. 261 of 2006  RD-AH 9342 (10 May 2006)
Crl. Misc. Transfer application No.261 of 2006.
Rohtashva Kumar..... Applicant.
State of U.P and others . Opp. Parties
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.