Skip to content


Baljeet Kaur and ors. Vs. Smt. Pal Kaur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Revision No. 123/81
Judge
Reported in1981WLN(UC)370
AppellantBaljeet Kaur and ors.
RespondentSmt. Pal Kaur
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - section 412--transfer application--one or other accused absent--no progress for 3 years--no reasons given by sessions judge for transfering case from hanumangarh to ganganagar--transfer to sangaria convenient to parties--held, case be transferred to sangaria.; revision allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained..........no certainty that if the case is transferred to a court out side hanumangarh a place to which the accused persons belong, the accused persons will be present on all dates. any how sangaria is said to be only 13 miles from hanumangarh and as such looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it will lead to the convenience of the parties if the case is transferred to the court of judicial magistrate, sangaria. if the number of accused is eight as alleged, they can file an application for exemption from appearance in the court of judicial magistrate, sangaria and the magistrate shall take all facts into consideration and pass the necessary orders.3. in the result i hereby allow the application, withdraw the case from the court of judicial magistrate, ganganagar and transfer it to the.....
Judgment:

M.B. Shrama, J.

1. Though the case was listed for confirmation of the stay order but with consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the revision application is itself being disposed of.

2. The learned Sessions Judge should have given reasons under Section 412 CrPC for transfer of the case from a court at Hanumangarh to Ganganagar. Though he has not expressly stated the reasons but the reasons which apper to have prevailed with him are that inspite of the fact that the case was filed three years ago, there has been no progress in the case and one or the other accused absents on the date fixed. This could not be a reason for transfer because there is no certainty that if the case is transferred to a court out side Hanumangarh a place to which the accused persons belong, the accused persons will be present on all dates. Any how Sangaria is said to be only 13 miles from Hanumangarh and as such looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it will lead to the convenience of the parties if the case is transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria. If the number of accused is eight as alleged, they can file an application for exemption from appearance in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria and the Magistrate shall take all facts into consideration and pass the necessary orders.

3. In the result I hereby allow the application, withdraw the case from the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar and transfer it to the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria for trial in accordance with law. The Complainant and accused persons shall put in appearance before that court at Sangaria on September 21, 1981. The record of the case shall be transmitted to that court directly. The learned Magistrate should expedite the trial of the case which is already more than three years old.


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