Accused Cannot Have A Judge Of His Own Choice: Madras HC Rejects Plea To Transfer Murder Trial
The Madras High Court rejected plea to transfer murder trial observing that the accused cannot have a judge of his own choice.
The court added that the administrative order of the Principal Sessions Judge cannot be questioned unless it is apparently illegal.
The Madurai Bench of the High Court was considering criminal original petition was filed under Section 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to transfer a case pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli to any other court having competent jurisdiction in other districts.
A Single Bench of Justice G. Ilangovan said, “… the order passed under section 194 Cr.P.C by the Principal Sessions Judge is purely an administrative in nature. As mentioned above, it is nothing, but distribution business among the Additional District Judges. The administrative order cannot be questioned, unless it is apparently illegal. On that account, this petition is not maintainable.”
Advocate R. Anand represented the petitioner while Additional Public Prosecutor R.M. Anbunithi and Advocate R. Karunanidhi represented the respondents.
Factual Background -
The petitioner was the 20th Accused in a case pending on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 109, 302, 307, 506(2), 120B, 149, and 114 IPC. After committal process, the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, made over the case to the III Additional District Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and the date of hearing was fixed, on November 20, 2023. The petitioner’s grievance was that the said case was also pending before the very same Judge. A Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) was appointed as per the order of the District Collector, Tirunelveli and after taking over the charge, the said SPP attempted to change the foundation of the case. He started tutoring the witnesses and a petition under Section 294 of Cr.P.C was filed by the prosecution, which was allowed.
Subsequently, a revision was preferred before the High Court and the said order was partially modified. Even after getting favourable order from the court, the petitioner was facing much pain saying that the Judge did not consider the orders of the High Court and that the concerned SPP was also misleading the court. It was contended that if the trial is dealt or tried by the very same judge, then the petitioner’s interest will be affected. Facing difficulties, he filed a petition under Section 408 Cr.P.C before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, to get the trial transferred to some other court. It was submitted that in the said petition also, the concerned SPP intervened without any authority and now those petitions were pending. Therefore, the petition was filed seeking transfer.
The High Court in the above context of the case noted, “It is very unfortunate to note that the petitioner wants a judge of his own choice, not only that, orders in his favour at all events, at all the occasions. … Coming to the present subject matter of the trial process, I am not in a position to understand the grievance of the petitioner.”
The Court said that the powers of the Principal Sessions Judge to make over the case to any judge cannot be called in question stating that without proper application of mind, the power has been exercised in making over the case to III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
“Simply because the petitioner is facing difficulties in SC No.528 of 2021 before the same Judge, it cannot be stated that the present case ought to have been made over to him. Such a right is not available not only to the accused, but also to the de-facto complainant or any other party, not even the State cannot make any objection. It is not a judicial order amenable to ordinary judicial review. It is an administrative order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge in the ordinary course of business. Absolutely, I find no ground to transfer the trial to some other judge on this account”, added the Court.
Furthermore, the Court said that transferring the matter to the other Judge will not be permissible under the law and that the petitioner cannot take the courts for granted to satisfy his requirement.
“Without any basic ground, this petition has been filed. … This petition deserves no consideration at all and accordingly, it is dismissed. The trial must be taken to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible”, concluded the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title- M. Palani v. The State & Ors.
