Mohan Gupta v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.15 of 2018 • Mohan Gupta, S/o. Ram Kisun Sao, aged about 35 years, R/o. Batwahi, Post Raghunathpur, PS and Tehsil Lundra, District Surguja (CG) ---- Petitioner

Versus

The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Lundra, Distt. Surguja (CG) ---- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Shri AK Prasad, Advocate For the respondent /State: Shri Vivek Sharma, Govt. Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 05.12.2018.

1.

This transfer petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for transferring of Criminal Case No.08/2015 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Mohan Gupta) for the offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') from the Court of Special Judge under the NDPS Act Surguja at Ambikapur to the Court of Special Judge under the NDPS Act, Surajpur.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was fixed for recording the statement of the petitioner on 23.01.2018 and when the petitioner appeared before the Court, the concerned clerk of the said Court was managing the file of the case in which the petitioner saw that a draft copy of the judgment affixed along with the file and in the said judgment the petitioner has been convicted. As

the matter was not finally heard by the said Court, even then there was draft judgment in the file, therefore, it is a good cause for transferring the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the matter of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhttisgarh & Ors. reported in 2007 SAR (Criminal)358.

3.

This Court has called a report from concerned Court vide order dated 11.7.2018 and as per the report of the said Court, no such draft is prepared and annexed in the said file. 4.

In the petition filed by the petitioner, name of the said clerk who was arranging the file is not mentioned. From the report of the said Court the allegations are false and baseless. 5.

From the petition it does not appear that the petitioner has approached the Sessions Judge in whose supervision the criminal court is working in the same premises and the Sessions Judge is the authority for distribution of the criminal business of the session division. The petitioner has bypassed the authority of the Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur and directly approached this Court, which shows that the petition is not bonafide. The case law cited by the petitioner is clearly distinguishable with the facts ad circumstances of the present case.

6.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Interim order passed earlier shall stand vacated. The trial Court/Special Judge under the NDPS,Act, Surguja is directed to proceed with the case and decide the matter on merits. Sd/- (Ram Prasanna Sharma) JUDGE Bini