AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.
The applicants are aggrieved by the order of transfer dated 24.1.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Misc. Transfer Application No. 14 of 2006, Anil v. State of U.P. transferring the Session Trial No. 929 of 2002 as well as connected S.T. Nos. 928, 930 and 931 of 2002 to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (E.C. Act), Muzaffarnagar. The grievance of the applicants is that while passing the said order of transfer, the accused were not noticed noticed and they were not heard.
As agreed by the learned Counsel of the applicants and the learned A.G.A., this application is taken up for hearing finally.
In view of the fact that the applicants were not given notice and not heard, while passing the impugned order dated 24.1.2006 by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Transfer Application No. 14 of 2006, this application deserves to be allowed in the light of the decision of Apex Court reported in 8 1999 ACC 217 Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana. In that judgment, Apex Court has taken a view that the applicant can get his case transferred but that should be done only after the accused being noticed and heard.
The matter is remanded back to the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar with the direction that he will issue notice to the accused persons and will hear them and after that will pass a fresh order on the Transfer Application filed by the informant. It is made clear that accused will not take any adjournment in hearing of the said transfer application and the Sessions Judge shall decide the transfer application on the first date of hearing itself.
The impugned order dated 24.1.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Misc. Transfer Application No. 14 of 2006 is hereby set aside.
In view of above law and on the facts of the present case, this application deserves to be allowed.
This application is allowed.