JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The respondent herein has filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is being dealt with by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Jain, A.C.M.M., Delhi. After the trial of the case the learned A.C.M.M. passed judgment dated 29.3.2006 and the matter was fixed for sentence. The petitioner, who is accused in the said case, thereafter started getting adjournments and almost six months after that, i.e. on 18.9.2006 he moved transfer application before the learned District and Sessions Judge alleging therein that the Judge, who was dealing with the case, was related to the complainant. On this transfer application notice was issued to the complainant for 22.11.2006. However, the learned District and Sessions Judge did not grant stay of the proceedings. The petitioner, in these circumstances, field petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court and this Court directed stay of the proceedings before the trial Court in view of the nature of allegations levelled by the petitioner in his transfer application, which was pending consideration before the learned District and Sessions Judge at that time. Thereafter, the application was heard by the learned District and Sessions Judge and is dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2006. In this order the learned District and Sessions Judge has observed that such an application is filed only when the matter is at the stage of pronouncement of the sentence and on this ground the application has been dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Operative part reads as under:
It is undisputed fact that the conviction order has already been passed against the applicant/accused vide judgment dated 29.3.2006. The present application was made only on 18.9.2006. The applicant/accused had not made any transfer (sic) application during the pendency of the complaint case alleging business or prejudice on the part of learned Presiding Office. It is seems that the applicant/accused has filed the present application just to delay the proceedings. It will be inappropriate to transfer the case once the applicant/accused has been convicted by Trial Court and only order on the point of sentence are to be passed after hearing arguments. I therefore find no merit in the application. Same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
Challenging this order, the present petition is filed.
2. Since the petitioner has made serious allegation and this aspect was not dealt with in the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, notice in this petition was issued to the respondent No. 1 for 6.12.2006, the respondent/complainant appeared and filed the affidavit categorically stating that he is not even remotely related to or connected with the Judge, who is dealing with the matter. He further pointed out that similar affidavit was filed before the learned District and Sessions Judge as well in reply to the transfer application. In these circumstances, on 6.12.2006 it was directed that the petitioner No. 2 shall appear in the Court. He is present and is not in a position to state as to what is the relation of the learned Judge with the complainant and on what basis such a serious allegation is made in the petition. He submits that he only heard somebody saying that the two are related to each other. It is really a sad state of affairs that merely on ipsi dixit of some person or on hearsay allegations of this nature are levelled. He further submits that he became suspicious when conviction order was passed. This defies the logic. It is the function of a Judge to decide and merely because the decision rendered goes against the petitioner, he cannot jump to such conclusions. A Judge may commit an error in passing an order. If the order is otherwise not in accordance with law, there are higher for a to challenge such an order and the aggrieved person in not remediless. However, such a tendency of raising these kinds of accusations is fraught with dangers and has to be condemned and reprimanded. There lies solemn responsibility on the Advocates as well, who draft such petition, to satisfy themselves about such accusations before filing these kinds of petitions. Since the petition has not been able to substantiate the allegations, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.