Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The HC of Karnataka dismissed the plea to transfer the trail case from Ramnagar to Bengaluru against Swamy Nithyanada on Monday. The court held that the petition submitted by Lenin K, complainant of this matter was ‘devoid of merits’ and dismissed the petition. The court directed to the trail court to expediate the trail, pending more than a decade. Senior Counsel for the Co-accused claimed that the evidence recorded was ‘unsubstantial’ in the eyes of law. The court by recording the evidence acted ultra vires to record fresh evidence by the trail court. The counsel also contented that the evidence was being recorded with a help of a translator right from the beginning, trail court believing it as factual matrix rejected the application. He claimed that the petitioner ‘may not’ receive fair trail in the districts and sessions court. So, this arose to the cause of action of the case as the petitioner approached the High Court being aggrieved of the said order given by the trail court.
In re Nahar Singh Yadav & Another Vs. Union of India & Others the bench held that "Order of transfer is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of the trial. There must be some substantial material to support the said contention and the said apprehension must be a reasonable apprehension. Keeping in view the said principle and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered opinion that the evidence of the petitioner, recorded on 8.8.2018 and 16.8.2018 and the evidence recorded subsequently on 18.9.2019, afresh is not going to create any apprehension, for the reason that the translator was not appointed in accordance with law.
The bench comprising of Justice B A Patil also referred to the matter of Javed Vs. State of Delhi, the court held that "The trial Court must strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed in Section 231 of Cr.P.C, read along with Section 309 of Cr.P.C. in order to ensure speedy trial, of a case and rule out the possibility of any manoeuvring taking place by granting undue long adjournments for the mere asking. Keeping in view the above said proposition of law and on perusal of records, it indicates that either at the instance of the prosecution or sometimes at the instance of the accused, the case has been adjourned for a decade and no progress has been made."
86540
103860
630
114
59824