@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S.L. Jain, J.
Petitioner Laxmi Narayan Khati has filed this petition u/s 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth, the ''Code'') for transfer of Sessions Trial No. 208/2002 (State of M.P. v. Shrikrishna Mishra), from the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa to any other District in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
The case of the petitioner in nutshell is as follows :--
(i) The petitioner is a Class-I Gazetted Officer in the Co-operative Department of State of Madhya Pradesh. On 30-11-2000, he was working as Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewa and he had jurisdiction to decide the appeals and revisions arising out of orders of the Court of Assistant/Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewa Division. On 30-11-2000 when the petitioner was giving dictation of the judgment to his steno, the respondent No. 2, who is accused in aforesaid Sessions Trial No. 208/2002, put off the electric light of the office and caused obstruction in the official work. Consequently, the petitioner could not further perform his work.
(ii) On the same day, when the petitioner came out of his office, the respondent No. 2 assaulted him with lathi causing head injury and fracture of his fingers. On lodging FIR of the incident by Prem Sagar Tiwari, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewa, Crime No. 599/2000 was registered against the respondent No. 2. The petitioner remained under medical treatment from 30-11-2000 to 7-12-2000 as indoor patient in the Gandhi Medical College, Rewa. He was discharged from the hospital on 7-12-2000. Thereafter, he was treated as outdoor patient from 7-12-2000 to 31-1-2001 at Bhopal. When the petitioner further suffered sudden weakness on 7-4-2001, he was admitted at Sharda Hospital and Diagnostic Centre, Bhopal where his CT Scan was performed and it was detected that the petitioner suffered cerebral infarcts right lenticulostriate artery territory with mild cerebral atrophy, (iii) It is also the case of the petitioner that the police presented the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa for an offence punishable u/s 325 of the IPC. Respondent No. 2 was released on bail. On 6-9-2002 the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa found that a prima facie case for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 333 of the IPC is made out against respondent No. 2 and as such, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Rewa. Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa framed the charge against respondent No. 2 for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 333 of the IPC.
(iv) The petitioner avers that the respondent No. 2 is having the support of highly placed and influential persons who had played important role in getting the petitioner assaulted. Dr. Vijay Tiwari, of Gandhi Medical College, Rewa who is nephew of Shrinivas Tiwari, the then Speaker of M.P. State Legislative Assembly, gave a false report that the injuries suffered by the petitioner were not dangerous to life. The police also presented the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa against the respondent No. 2, for an offence punishable u/s 325 of the IPC only. The office of the Public Prosecutor also approved the charge-sheet for the offence punishable u/s 325 of the IPC. All this has been done under the influence of respondent No. 2 who is having political patronage.
(v) The petitioner has further pleaded that because of the terror of the respondent No. 2 he is not able to go to Rewa and instruct his Counsel and is not able to prosecute his case properly. There is every likelihood that the respondent No. 2 will influence the witnesses and will compel them to speak in his favour. The petitioner also apprehends that some bodily harm may be caused to him if he goes to Rewa.
I have heard Shri Amit Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri J.K. Jain, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State and Shri Greeshm Jain, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2; and perused the record.
The grievance of the petitioner that the challan against the respondent No. 2 was filed for offence u/s 325 of the IPC only, stands redressed as now the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and charge for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 333 of the IPC has been framed against the respondent No. 2.
So far as the question of influence of Shrinivas Tiwari, the then Speaker of M.P. Legislative Assembly is concerned, he is no more Speaker of the Assembly. It has not been stated by the petitioner that Shrinivas Tiwari, in any manner, interfered with the investigation.
It is true that Dr. Vijay Tiwari, who examined the petitioner in Gandhi Medical College Hospital, Rewa and submitted a report that the injuries are not dangerous to life, is alleged to be the nephew of Shrinivas Tiwari but now he has no role to play. If the petitioner apprehends that Dr. Vijay Tiwari will not give the evidence honestly at Rewa, the transfer of the case to some other Court will not make any difference. In a Court other than the Court at Rewa also Dr. Vijay Tiwari may not give true evidence.
The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Shrinivas Tiwari who is erstwhile Speaker of State Legislative Assembly may influence the trial.
As has already been stated, there is no allegation that Shrinivas Tiwari made any effort to influence any witness or any authority. So far as the investigation part of the case is concerned, it is already over. It can not be believed that a judicial officer can be influenced by political persons. Subordinate judiciary of Madhya Pradesh is known for its independence, integrity and impartiality. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not dispute this fact that since the matter is pending in the Court and the Presiding Officer of the Court will have effective control on the trial also, it can not be said that the Public Prosecutor or investigating agency at Rewa will be in a position to favour the respondent No. 2 during the trial.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that if the petitioner is asked to go to Rewa, his safety would be in danger.
It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 ever gave any threat of assaulting him if he goes to Rewa, therefore, this is also a nebulous ground for transferring the case from Rewa to some other Court. However, I must take necessary precaution for assuring the safety of the petitioner, therefore, I direct the Government Advocate to inform the Superintendent of Police, Rewa to extend all the possible facilities to the petitioner whenever he is required to attend the Court of concerned Trial Judge at Rewa in connection with the above said Sessions Trial No. 208/2002, to ensure his security, which would put the apprehension of the petitioner of being assaulted by respondent No. 2 at Rewa, to an end and would also knock out the ground on which the petition for transfer of the case is founded.
The concerned Trial Judge, before whom the aforesaid Sessions Trial is pending shall also inform the Superintendent of Police, Rewa, the date on which the petitioner has to appear before him for giving his evidence. On receipt of such information the Superintendent of Police, Rewa, shall make every arrangement for the safety of the petitioner and on the date of hearing of the trial the petitioner shall be taken from the railway station or bus stand, as the case may be, to the Court concerned and after his evidence is concluded, he will be sent back to the railway station or bus stand. If necessary, he shall be taken and sent back on a police vehicle. While the petitioner is in the Court, all necessary arrangements for his safety and security shall also be made there.
Besides the aforesaid, the Trial Judge, concerned, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, shall obtain an undertaking from the respondent No. 2, Shrikant Mishra, to the effect that he or any other person on his behalf will not approach the petitioner or any of his relations or any other prosecution witness to directly or indirectly harass or threat or influence them. The Trial Judge shall also give priority to dispose of the above said Sessions Trial as early as possible.
In view of the directions of this Court given in Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 above, the petition stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be given to the Government Advocate concerned and be forwarded to Trial Judge, concerned for information and necessary compliance of the order.
