P&H HC Transfers Cheating Case Against District Court Lawyer After Advocates Decline Brief Against Him
The Punjab & Haryana Excessive Court docket transferred a dishonest case to a different district because the accused individuals have been attorneys in the identical Court docket the place the plea was filed, and attorneys on the district courtroom refused to just accept a short towards them.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar mentioned, “The shortcoming of a litigant to safe efficient authorized help as a consequence of reluctance attributable to undue affect or creation of a hostile atmosphere by the alternative occasion, particularly the place the accused is an Advocate working towards in the identical Court docket, compromises the foundational rules of honest trial.”
The Court docket added that it’s trite regulation that the lack to have interaction a authorized counsel owing to reluctance attributable to native components might represent a sound floor for switch of trial underneath Part 407 Cr.P.C.
Reliance was positioned on Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat [(2004) 4 SCC 158], whereby a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court docket opined {that a} free trial would essentially contain the creation of a impartial ambiance the place events can take part freely by availing efficient authorized help.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had lodged the FIR (Sections 420, 467, 471, 468 and 120-B of IPC) towards the respondents for getting ready a solid Will within the title of the petitioner’s late uncle, particularly, Manjit Singh, with a view to usurp the property of the deceased.
He additional contended that the three accused within the FIR are Advocates, practising in the identical district the place the FIR is pending. For that reason, no Advocate from the mentioned district was prepared to symbolize the petitioner, which had induced nice prejudice and inconvenience to him.
State counsel submitted that ASI Rajwinder Singh had inquired into the assertion that no Advocate was prepared to symbolize the petitioner towards the personal respondents and located the identical to be right. Nevertheless, the Advocates of Ajnala Bar Affiliation had refused to document any statements on this regard.
After analyzing the submissions, the Court docket mentioned that, “because the petitioner is unable to safe worthwhile authorized illustration in Amritsar, this Court docket finds it applicable to switch the trial to a different district by invoking Part 447 of the BNSS, within the curiosity of justice.”
Consequently, the Court docket transferred the case from Ajnala, from Further Periods Choose, Amritsar to to the jurisdiction of the Periods Choose, Hoshiarpur.
“Realized Periods Choose, Amritsar is directed to switch the document pertaining to the aforesaid case to discovered Periods Choose, Hoshiarpur, who will assign the identical to the Court docket of competent jurisdiction at Hoshiarpur,” added the Court docket.
Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Lokesh Garg, Advocate for Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to five.
Title: DALJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
