High Court Kerala High Court

Noufal vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Noufal vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr.P(Crl.).No. 15 of 2009()


1. NOUFAL, S/O.JAMALUDEEN, KOLAKKAL
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SHIJU, S/O.ALIYARU KUNJU,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. SRI.ABDUL AZEEZ, ADVOCATE ZAM ZAM HOUSE,

3. SRI.SAMEER,  ADVOCATE,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.P.S.PREETHA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :06/02/2009

 O R D E R
                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                T.R.P.(CRL). NO. 15 OF 2009
             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
       Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009.

                          O R D E R

This transfer petition is filed to transfer S.C.996/04

pending before the Additional District and Sessions Court,

Adhoc-1, Kollam to any other Court. The allegation is that

respondents 2 and 3 namely CWs.1 and 2 who are practising

lawyers at Kollam Courts have close acquaintance with

Courts of Kollam Sessions Division. It is averred that the 2nd

respondent was a former Public Prosecutor and he is having

high influence in the police department and prosecution and

he is having much clout with political parties. When

advocates are practising in Courts certainly the advocates

will have acquaintance with the Presiding Officer and vice

versa. Both advocates and judges are exercising the duties

cast on them and if cases are to be transferred on the

ground that a particular lawyer is practicing in a particular

Court and that he may have acquaintance with the Presiding

Officer, it will have the effect of striking at the root of the

T.R.P.(Crl) 15 OF 2009
-:2:-

judicial system and discipline which we are maintaining in

this State. After all CWs.2 and 3 are two witnesses in a

prosecution case. The witnesses can only depose what they

have stated when they were questioned and if they turn

hostile there are relevant provisions which allow the parties

to tackle that situation. The case is of the year 2004 and it

is coming up for trial on 11.2.2009. I do not find that

grounds alleged are sufficient to grant a transfer. There is

absolutely no pinch of materials to prove any bias or

influence and therefore the transfer petition is dismissed.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ul/-