Criminal Misc. Application (u/S. 407) No. 67 of 2014. Case: Anil Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U. P. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Misc. Application (u/S. 407) No. 67 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Applicant: Qazi Sabihur Rahman, Adv. and For Respondents: A.A.G., Suniti Sachan Nandit Srivastava, Dr. Salil Kumar Srivastava, Advs. |
| Judges | Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J. |
| Issue | Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Sections 407, 326(2) |
| Citation | 2015 CriLJ 2826 |
| Judgement Date | December 04, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
-
This application under Section 407 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner/accused for transfer of Criminal Case No. 4 of 2012 having Crime No. 64 of 2012, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 204, 201 I.P.C. and 7/13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Hussainganj, District-Lucknow from the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (UPSEB), Lucknow to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15/ Special Judge Gangsters Act, Lucknow presided over by Shri. Lalloo Singh.
-
The transfer was sought on the ground that the Special Investigation Bureau (Co-operative Cell), Lucknow, after investigation in the matter filed separate charge-sheets on different dates against 15 accused persons in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow. Learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow after taking cognizance in all the cases pertaining to aforesaid case transfer the cases for trial after consolidating them to the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption (U.P.S.E.B.).
-
In a writ petition No. 3359 (MS) of 2014 filed by one accused Badshah Singh direction has been issued to decide the trial expeditiously by taking the case on day to day basis without granting any frivolous and unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
-
Another accused Ranganath Mishra filed a special leave petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court which was decided on 14.07.2014 with the direction that the charges have been framed against the appellant and nine witnesses have been examined and High Court already ordered that trial to proceed on day to day basis, therefore, trial must be completed within a period of three months, if the same is not so completed. With this observation, the appeal of appellant Ranganath Mishra was dismissed.
-
In trial 26 prosecution witnesses were examined and thereafter on 19.08.2014 prosecution closed its evidence. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. till 21.08.2014. Thereafter 8 defence witnesses were produced before trial Court till 26.08.2014 and defence evidence was closed. Thereafter, arguments of the parties were started and concluded on 02.09.2014. The case was then listed for writing of the judgment by the then Presiding Officer, namely, Shri. Lalloo Singh on 03.09.2014. Shri. Lalloo Singh was transferred from that court and taken over charge in the same session division of Lucknow as Additional Sessions Judge court No.15/ (Special Judge Gangsters Act) vide Court Notification No.812/JR(S) 2014 dated 02.09.2014. Sri. Akhilesh Duby after transfer vide Court Notification No.811/JR(S) 2014 dated 02.09.2014 taken over charge of the Court of Anti-Corruption (UPSEB). After transfer of Sri. Lallo Singh Additional Sessions Judge in another Court of the same session division an application under Section 408 Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow on the ground that the entire evidence of the case have been recorded by Shri. Lalloo Singh and he is still posted in Lucknow session division in other Court, therefore, the case be transferred to the Court presided over by Shri. Lalloo Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow. It has been urged that the Government of Uttar Pradesh by notification dated 19.02.2008 conferred powers upon all Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge working in a Sessions Division to exercise jurisdiction for conducting case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The copy of the aforesaid Notification is annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the petition.
-
The application for transfer of case was dismissed by Sessions Judge on 15.09.2014. Thereafter, this petition was presented before this Court on 22.09.2014 without impleading the other co-accused. On direction of the Court, all other accused persons were impleaded vide order dated 05.11.2014. Except the State none of the accused persons opposed the transfer application moved by the applicant Anil Kumar Agarwal.
-
The State filed counter affidavit alleging therein that in fact application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by accused Babu Singh Kushwaha and Ram Bodh Maurya in the month of August 2014 which was not decided before listing the case for argument or for writing of judgment. These applications were decided on 23.09.2014 by the successor Judge of Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption (UPSEB),Lucknow. Against the order dated 23.9.2014 a Criminal Revision No. 531 of 2014 was also filed which is still pending before this Court. It was further contended that on 23.09.2014, another application under Section 243/91 Cr.P.C. was filed by accused Ajay Dohre to summon the original record relating to auction in the light of earlier order passed on 21.08.2014. The said application was allowed on 29.09.2014 and thereafter statement of Shri. Satyanand Chauby was recorded. One more application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused Rang Nath Mishra on 10.10.2014, which has been rejected by the trial Court on 14.10.2014. An application was also pending, which was moved by Badshah Singh on 02.09.2014. The copy of the order sheets from 02.09.2014 to 13.10.2014 was also filed with counter affidavit as Annexure CA-2. It was further submitted that the matter relates to scam of LACFED involving multi crore of rupees and wherein four ex-ministers are facing trial.
-
Replication has been filed by Anil Kumar Agarwal who moved transfer application but no other accused has filed objection against the application moved by Anil Kumar Agarwal.
-
So far as the factual matrix of case is concerned the correctness of the same has not been disputed by the parties as is evident from the pleading of the parties and the documents filed in support thereof.
-
I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, other co-accused respondents and the learned AAG and gone through the record of the case.
-
The learned AAG Smt. Suniti Sachan would submit that present applicant is seeking repeated adjournment on the ground of pendency of the transfer application and he is creating hurdles in disposal of trial. It was further submitted that the argument on...
To continue reading
Request your trial