Orissa High Court
Smt. Priyanka Padhi vs State Of Odisha And Others on 27 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 4281 of 2022
Smt. Priyanka Padhi .... Petitioner
Mr. Mohendra Kumar Mohapatro, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC, OP No.1
None for OP Nos.2 to 6
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
27.01.2023
Order No.
02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the
petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 28th October, 2022
under Annexure-6 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rayagada
in Tr. P.(Crl.) No.01 of 2022 whereby a direction for transfer of
G.R. Case No.83 of 2020 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M.,
Gunupur to the court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rayagada
in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 408 Cr.P.C. was declined.
3. Perused the copy of the order under Annexure-6.
4. Mr. Mohapatro, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the accused persons are close relations of one Mr.Rajendra
Sahoo. Additional Public Prosecutor, who is said to have been
engaged in the present case and since there is ample chance of
having no fair and impartial trial, he being the Prosecutor, the
hearing and trial of the case pending in the court of learned
S.D.J.M., Gunupur should have been transferred to the court at
Rayagada. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been
influenced quite often and pressurized by the said Public Prosecutor
to go for a compromise with the accused persons and hence, it is
apprehended that she may not get justice if the case is tried at
Gunupur. With the above submission, Mr. Mohapatro, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the application under
Annexure-3 was moved but the same was rejected by the learned
District & Sessions Judge, Rayagada in Tr.P(Crl.) No.01 of 2022 vide
Annexure-6, which is unjustified. While contending so, Mr.
Mohapatro, learned counsel for the petitioner cites a decision in the
case of Abdul Nazar Madani Vrs. State of Tamilnadu and Another
with M. Mohammed Ansari and Others Vrs. State of Tamilnadu and
Another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 204 seeking transfer of the case
from Gunupur to Rayagada for enquiry and trial.
5. Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State on the other
hand submits that the impugned order under Annexure-6 is justified
and as per and in accordance with law. It is also submitted that
there is no cause of concern or apprehension as is anticipated by the
petitioner since because the learned court below while passing the
impugned order under Annexure-6 has considered the said aspect
and even concluded that the trial can also be conducted through
video conferencing and the petitioner as well as the witnesses may
also apply for safety and security as per and provisions of the
Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. In such view of the matter, Mr.
Praharaj, learned counsel for the State submits that no case is made
by the petitioner and learned Sessions Judge is right and justified in
declining to transfer the case vide Annexure-6.
6. In Abdul Nazar Madani (supra), the Apex Court highlighted
upon the principles with regard to a fair and impartial trial while
dealing with the matter for transfer of a criminal case from a court
at Coimbatore to any Sessions court in the State of Kerala or at least
in the State of Tamilnadu. In the said case, the prayer for transfer of
the case although was declined but the principles in that regard have
been discussed and laid down. It has been held therein that the
purpose of criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice
uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. All such aspects for a fair
trial have been discussed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid
decision. Referring to the judgment cited (supra) Mr. Mohapatro,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is
apprehensive of fair trial at Gunupur in view of the close
acquaintance of the accused persons with the concerned Additional
Public Prosecutor, it is a fit case where case should be transferred to
Rayagada, the fact which was lost sight of the learned Sessions court
while passing the impugned order under Anenxure-6. If the
Additional public prosecutor is known to the accused persons, on an
application from the side of the informant received by the court in
seisin over the matter, he may be disengaged with the orders of the
Public Prosecutor. At the same time, any safety and security issues
vis-a-vis the petitioner and other witnesses is involved, the same
may also be looked into and addressed by the court concerned. The
said aspect has been considered by the learned Sessions court in
Anenxure-6. In other words, the petitioner and the witnesses who
are vulnerable may approach the Appropriate Authority as per the
provision of Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 seeking protection in
case of impending threat perception. From the impugned order
under Annexre-6 it is made to appear that there is facility and
provision for video conferencing to hold the enquiry and trial
through virtual mode. In view of the above, the Court is of the
conclusion that the learned Sessions Court did not commit any error
or illegality while declining to transfer the case from Gunupur to
Rayagada as was prayed for. The Court does not find any reason or
compelling ground either to take a different view than the view
expressed by the learned court below.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered.
8. In the result, CRLMC stands disposed of in the above terms.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
U.K.Sahoo
