Skip to content


Prahlad S/O Shri Jai Gopal Tikkiwal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Misc. Transfer Application No. 921 of 1980
Judge
Reported in1981WLN(UC)158
AppellantPrahlad S/O Shri Jai Gopal Tikkiwal
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan and ors.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
.....- appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - the petitioner's case is further that the sessions judge as well as the chief judicial magistrate, vishambhar dayal gupta, came to his shop and offered rs 2,000/- as the first instalment and the rest of the amount on monthly instalments of rs. the sessions judge, as well as the chief judicial magistrate both have categorically denied having approached the petitioner for the supply of a motor-cycle, as alleged by the petitioner...........procedure, 1973, for the transfer of criminal case no. 252/1980 pending in the court of the chief judicial magistrate, tonk.2. the grounds on which the petitioner has sought the transfer of the case, may be summed up as under.(1) that, the petitioner is a dealer of rajdoot motor cycle, and runs his business in the name and style of 'arvind motor company' tonk. prior to the incident, which forms the subject-matter of the case against the petitioner the chief judicial magistrate had come to the petitioners shop and asked him as to whether he would be able to supply him a motor-cycle, which he needed for the learned sessions judge, and that the petitioner agreed to supply the same at the cost price. the petitioner's case is further that the sessions judge as well as the chief.....
Judgment:

S.C. Agrawal, J.

1. This transfer application has been moved by accused, Prahlad, under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the transfer of criminal case No. 252/1980 pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk.

2. The grounds on which the petitioner has sought the transfer of the case, may be summed up as under.

(1) That, the petitioner is a dealer of Rajdoot Motor Cycle, and runs his business in the name and style of 'Arvind Motor Company' Tonk. Prior to the incident, which forms the subject-matter of the case against the petitioner the Chief Judicial Magistrate had come to the petitioners shop and asked him as to whether he would be able to supply him a motor-cycle, which he needed for the learned Sessions Judge, and that the petitioner agreed to supply the same at the cost price. The petitioner's case is further that the Sessions Judge as well as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vishambhar Dayal Gupta, came to his shop and offered Rs 2,000/- as the first instalment and the rest of the amount on monthly instalments of Rs. 200/-. But the petitioner showed his inability on the aforesaid terms, and thereupon, the Chief Judicial Magistrate became very angry with the petitioner.

(2) That, even though, the police had filed a challan against the petitioner under Sections 147, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, the Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated June 3, 1980, took cognizance for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner.

(3) That, on June 3, 1980, the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order for cancelling the bail of all the accused, and he also issued a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner on the ground that he was an absconder.

3. Notices were issued to the non-petitioners of the transfer application and in response to the said notices non-petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 have submitted their comments. The Sessions Judge, as well as the Chief Judicial Magistrate both have categorically denied having approached the petitioner for the supply of a motor-cycle, as alleged by the petitioner. With regard to the order dated June 3, 1980, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has pointed out that the petitioner had moved an application before this Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of the said order, and the same was dismissed.

4. As regards the order dated June 3, 1980 for the arrest of the petitioner, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has submitted that the petitioner was present in the Court, and as soon as order for taking cognizance under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, was passed he disappeared and therefore, the order for issue of warrant for the arrest, was passed.

5. I have heard Mr. Soral for the petitioner. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has been able to establish any grounds for the transfer of the case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

6. The transfer application is, therefore, rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //