Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.KRISHNAN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.Krishnan v. State represented by - Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5294 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 1984 (18 June 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 18/06/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5294 of 2007

and

M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007

P.Krishnan ... Petitioner

Vs

1.State represented by

Inspector of Police,

North Police station,

Thoothukudi.

2.John Alexander

3.Shankar

4.Swaminathan

5.Mari ALIAS Mariappan

6.Shanmugam ... Respondents

Prayer

Petition filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to transfer the case in S.C.No.218 of 2006 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court No.2, Thoothukudi to some other Court, having jurisdiction to try the offence in the same or other district.

For Petitioner : Mrs.Porkodi Karnan For 1st Respondent : Mr.P.Rajendran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) :ORDER



This petition has been filed to transfer the case in S.C.No.218 of 2006 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.2, Thoothukudi to some other Court, having jurisdiction to try the offence in the same or other district.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side).

3.The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first accused in S.C.No.218 of 2006 for the offence under Section 449, 148, 149 and 307 of I.P.C. is a practising advocate in Thoothukudi and he is also attached to the Office of the Public Prosecutor, who is bound to conduct the case on behalf of the State. Hence, he prays for transfer of the case from Fast Track Court No.II, to some other Court in the same Sessions Division.

4.Perused the records. Ex-facie, I do not find any valid ground to transfer the Sessions Case No.218 of 2006. There is no allegation against the Judicial Officer. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the Public Prosecutor, who is allegedly close to the first accused cannot conduct the prosecution effectively. If be that so, the petitioner has a remedy to engage an advocate of his own choice to assist the Public Prosecutor to conduct the case.

5.In this facts and circumstances of the case, the following direction is issued:

If the petitioner files an application for assisting the prosecution, through an advocate of his choice, the Additional Sessions Judge shall consider it, so as to dispel the fear and apprehension in the mind of the petitioner.

6. With the above direction, this petition is closed. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007 is also closed.

To

1.The Additional Sessions Judge

Fast Track Court No.II,

Thoothukudi.

2.The Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.




Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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