Prakash Vinayak Patil vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5768 Bom

                      rpa                             1/4                21appln45of2022.doc


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                       CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2022


                      Prakash Vinayak Patil                              .. Applicant
                            Versus
                      State of Maharashtra and Anr.                      .. Respondents

                                                       ......
                      Mr.Anand S. Patil, Advocate the for Applicant.
                      Mr.A.D. Kamkhedkar, APP for the Respondent - State.
                                                     ......

                                               CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK J.

                                               DATED : JUNE 23, 2022.

                      P.C. :

                                  The applicant is tried for various offences in 11 cases

                      pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at

                      Chandgad, Kolhapur. Undisputedly in all 11 cases the trial Court has

                      already recorded evidence and the cases are pending for judgment.


                      2           The grievance of the applicant is that there is
         Digitally
         signed by
         RAJESHRI     apprehension that the applicant may not get fair justice before the
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
AHER     Date:
         2022.06.24
         19:16:32
         +0530
                      trial Court where the cases are pending, and, hence, the cases be

                      transferred to any other Court. He preferred an application seeking

                      transfer of proceedings before the Court of the Principal District Judge

                      at Kolhapur. The application has been rejected vide order dated 6th

                      October, 2021.
 rpa                            2/4                    21appln45of2022.doc


3            Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that

the evidence of all the cases are over and the trial Court had

prolonged the decisions in the cases and they were adjourned from

time to time. The applicant was in custody in one of the case and he

continued to be in custody as the matters were prolonged without

passing judgment by the trial Court. It is submitted that the ground

for transferring the proceedings were mentioned in the application

preferred by him before the Principal District Judge. Before the

judgment could be delivered, the trial Court has expressed that cases

would result in conviction. The applicant would not get justice before

the said Court, and, therefore, cases be transferred to any other Court.



4            Learned APP submitted that there is no ground for

transferring the proceedings to any other Court. The trial Court has

recorded evidence in all the cases and the same are due for delivering

the fnal judgment. The Principal District Judge has passed detailed

order after calling record from the trial Court, and, rejected the

application of transfer preferred by the applicant.



5            On perusal of the grounds urged in the application for

transfer of cases and the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel for the applicant, I do not fnd any reason to transfer the said

proceedings from the Sessions Court to any other Court. Undisputedly,
 rpa                             3/4                21appln45of2022.doc


the evidence in all cases are recorded and the matters are due for

delivering the judgments. The submission that the trial Court has

expressed that the accused can be convicted, is not supported by any

document. In any case, the evidence is recorded and the matters are

due for judgment. On perusal of the orders passed by the Principal

District Judge, it is apparent that the Court has taken into

consideration all the aspects and the apprehension expressed by the

applicant and rejected the application for transfer. The order dated 6 th

October, 2021 indicate that 11 matters were kept for judgment and at

this stage the applicant has fled application to transfer the matter to

any other court. The allegations are made against the presiding offcer.

After going through the record, it is found that after completion of the

arguments, there was a period of Covid-19. There was no regular

Court working. The Roznama shows that the applicant was not

present as he was arrested in another crime. To secure his presence,

the Court has rejection his application for cancellation of bail. It

cannot be treated as prejudiced mind, as the matters were at the fag

end. The entire proceedings are completed. It would take another six

months if the matters are transferred and there is no reason to

transfer the matters to any other Court only because the applicant is

apprehending that he would be convicted.
 rpa                             4/4                21appln45of2022.doc


6            Undisputedly the applications were made after the

evidences of all the 11 cases were recorded over. I do not fnd any

reason to interfere in the order passed by the Principal District Judge.

No ground is made out to transfer the proceedings . Hence, this

application is required to be rejected.



7            Hence, I pass the following order:



                             :: O R D E R ::

(i) Criminal Application No.45 of 2022, is rejected and

stands disposed of;

(ii) Copy of this order be communicated to the trial

Court immediately.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)