High Court Kerala High Court

Sojan Jacob vs Sreeram Agencies on 9 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
Sojan Jacob vs Sreeram Agencies on 9 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr.P(Crl.).No. 102 of 2008()


1. SOJAN JACOB
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SREERAM AGENCIES, N.PARAVOOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SARAVANA BHAVAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :09/06/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

              ------------------------------------------
               Tr.P.(CRL.)NO.102 OF 2008
              ------------------------------------------

                 Dated       9th     June 2009


                           O R D E R

Petitioner is the accused and first

respondent the complainant in S.T.4195/2005 on the

file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, North

Paravoor. Magistrate has taken cognizance for the

offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act. First respondent was examined as early as

22/4/2008 and case was posted for questioning under

Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The

petitioner did not appear and a non bailable warrant

was issued. It is pending. This petition is filed for

transfer of the case from Judicial First Class

Magistrate, North Paravoor to Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Kanjirappally contending that petitioner

is laid up due to cancer and he is not in a position

to travel and appear before the Magistrate at

Paravoor and give evidence. Petitioner has also

contended that court at North Paravoor has no

jurisdiction and therefore it is to be transferred.


TPCR 102/08
                              2


           2.   Learned   counsel    appearing   for

petitioner and first respondent were heard.

           3.   Learned   counsel    appearing   for

petitioner submitted that    medical records produced

establish that petitioner is suffering     from bone

cancer and is being administered    Chemotherapy and

it is not possible for him to travel to North

Paravoor and give evidence. Learned counsel

submitted that the case be transferred to

Kanjirappally and petitioner is prepared to co-

operate for early disposal and there can be a

direction to dispose the same within a time frame.

4. Learned counsel appearing for first

respondent opposed the application contending that

petitioner absconded when the case was posted for

questioning and in such circumstances, he is not

entitled to get a transfer. Learned counsel also

submitted that if the case is to be transferred,

first respondent, a lady has to travel to

Kanjirapally and engage a counsel and appear before

the court and it would be a punishment for her and

therefore the case may not be transferred.

5. Considering the records establishing

the illness of the petitioner, it is in the interest

TPCR 102/08
3

of justice to transfer the case to Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Kanjirappally. Apprehension of the

first respondent/complainant that she had to

undertake journey to Kanjirappally which would

cause difficulty to her, could be removed by making

it clear that she need not be present before the

court and she can represent through her counsel.

So also the apprehension of the further protraction

of the case could be avoided by directing the

Magistrate to dispose the case within a time frame.

6. In such circumstances, petition is

allowed. S.T.4195/2005 on the file of Judicial First

Class Magistrate-II, North Paravoor is transferred

to Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kanjirappally

for trial, making it clear that the Magistrate has

continue the proceedings from the stage of

questioning the accused on the evidence already

recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. It is also made clear that the Magistrate

to give exemption to first respondent/complainant

from personal appearance as her evidence is already

over and personal appearance of the complainant is

not at all necessary. Magistrate to dispose the

case within two months from the date of receipt of

TPCR 102/08
4

the records. Petitioner shall not seek adjournment

for his examination.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.