IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr P(Crl) No. 32 of 2007()
1. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 39 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERAL, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. T.K. PRABHAKARAN, S/O.T.K.KRISHNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :21/02/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
Tr.P.(Crl).No.32 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of February 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in two prosecutions both
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and both
initiated by the same complainant. Both those cases were
initiated as early as in 2003. They have now reached the stage
of defence evidence. Signatures in the cheques are not disputed.
The contention is that the complainant had come into possession
of the blank cheques and is attempting to misuse those signed
blank cheques. The complainant was cross-examined. At the
stage of defence evidence, the petitioner/accused cited the wife
of the complainant as defence witness. That witness has been
examined also. The petitioner went before the learned Sessions
Judge with the grievance that the learned Magistrate is
entertaining a prejudice and therefore he does not expect justice
at the hands of the learned Magistrate.
2. Why did he entertain such an apprehension?
Sweeping, general and vague allegation was raised that the
learned Magistrate had not permitted some questions to be put
Tr.P.(Crl).No.32/07 2
to the defence witness. The learned Sessions Judge pointedly
considered that aspect and stated that the vague, sweeping and
general allegations raised are not sufficient to justify the prayer
for transfer of the cases. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate, by
the order produced as Annexure-II dismissed the application for
transfer. Dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has
come before this court. Even now, no specific and precise
allegation is raised as to what question had not been permitted
by the learned Magistrate and how refusal to permit such non-
specified questions can be reckoned by this court as indicative of
the prejudice entertained by the learned Magistrate. I am, in
these circumstances, satisfied that the prayer for transfer made
before this court is also without any substance. The said prayer
cannot be accepted.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if
a further opportunity is given and some time were granted, it
shall be possible for the petitioner to narrate the specific
questions which were disallowed by the learned Magistrate. I
am not persuaded to grant any further time. This is so because
in Annexure-II order, for the very same reason, the learned
Tr.P.(Crl).No.32/07 3
Sessions Judge had refused the prayer for transfer. Non-
specification of such questions in this transfer petition also must,
in these circumstances, be held to be crucial and vital. I am not,
in these circumstances, persuaded to accept the impassionate
request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for some
further time.
4. This transfer petition is, in these circumstances,
dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Tr.P.(Crl).No.32/07 4
Tr.P.(Crl).No.32/07 5
R.BASANT, J
C.R.R.P.No.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF JULY 2006