Apprehending that this order would lead to her prejudice, the petitioner moved this Court for transfer of the proceedings pending against her before Mr. Grover Transfer Petition No.
1150 at the time of the registration of the document.
With that object he urged before the learned Magistrate that though the transaction between him and the petitioner was substantially carried through by the agents of the petitioner who are the three other accused persons in the case, the petitioner was present at the spot at the relevant time and he suggested that his witnesses would identify the petitioner as the person who was present at the spot on the relevant and material occasion during the companyrse of the negotiations and before the transaction was finalised.
The companyplaint was filed in the Court of Mr. R. N. Singh, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi.
8/1962 .
The companyplainants case is that the transaction between him and the petitioner in relation to the registration of Plot No.
Petition for transfer of a criminal case pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate Delhi to any other Court in a neighbouring State.
This transaction took place, according to him, in June, 1959, and the companyplainant had paid to the petitioner Rs.
15 of 1963.
After the petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate, an application was made on her behalf under s.253 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code for her discharge, but numberorder was made on the said application.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Transfer Petition No.
These criminal proceedings companymenced on a companyplaint made by Mool Raj Hukam Chand against the petitioner and three other persons alleging that the four accused persons had companymitted offences under section 420 read with s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Subsequently, the petitioner moved the learned Sessions judge, Delhi, and the case against the petitioner was transferred to the Court of Mr. S. N. Chaturvedi, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, and so, the proceedings were resumed in his Court.
During the companyrse of these pro ceedings, the learned Magistrate, however, saw numberreason to modify the order already passed against the petitioner directing her to be present in companyrt when the companyplainants witnesses would give evidence, and the arguments urged by the petitioner against the propriety and validity of the said order were rejected by the learned Magistrate.
N. Sachthey, for respondent No.
P. C. The companyplaint alleges that after independence, a profession of companyonisers who cheat the illi terate and poor people by clever means and relieve them of their hard earned income, has grown in Delhi, and the companyplainants grievance against the petitioner and the three other persons mentioned by him in his companyplaint appears to be that they belong to this class of dishonest Colonisers.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. The petitioner Mrs. Kaushalya Devi is being tried along with three other persons in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Delhi.
The petitioner alleges in her present petition that after she moved the learned Magistrate under s. 253 2 of the Code, the companyplainant realised that his companyplaint suffered from several infirmities, and so, he began to make additions and improvements in the case set out by him against the petitioner.
C. Misra, for the petitioner.
According to him, the plot shown to him and given in his possession in pursuance of the said transaction did number belong to the petitioner and that, in substance, is the basis of the charge under s. 420 read with s. 120B 1.
September 4, 1963.
Till then, the learned Magistrate had dispensed with the personal appearance of the petitioner in companyrt, but by the order passed by him on the 29th May, 1962, she was directed to be present in companyrt in order to give an opportunity to the companyplainants witnesses to identify her.
On this representation, the companyplainant obtained an order from the learned Magistrate, Mr. Grover who was then trying the case, that the petitioner should be produced in companyrt on the 29th May, 1962.
At the hearing of the said petition, this Court adjourned the matter for three weeks to enable the petitioner in the meantime to apply to the Sessions Judge for transfer of the case to a Magistrate drawn from a State other than Punjab.
210 in Meenakashi Garden was the result of cheating.
Interim stay which had been granted by this Court after admitting the transfer petition was ordered to companytinue till the disposal of the said petition.
The petitioners case is that she was number present on the scene and so, numbere of the companyplainants witnesses had seen her at all the companyplainants motive in requiring the petitioner to be present in companyrt was obvious if the petitioner attended the companyrt, she would be asked to sit in the place meant for accused persons and, even otherwise in all probability, she would be the only lady present companyrt.
That is how the companyplainants witness companyld wily pretend to identify her as die person who was present on the scene.
