# Dileep Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1169
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-10-26
- **Case number:** Criliminal Misc. Transfer Appli. No. 591 of 2010
- **Bench:** B.K. Narayana
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dileep-singh-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41738
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Transfer of
Criminal Trail-from one court to anotherrejection thereof without recording the
reasons
for
rejection-held-can
not
sustained-concept of reasoned judgment
became indispensable part of basic rule
of law-matter remitted back for fresh
consideration.

Held: Para 16

The learned Sessions Judge, refused the
prayer for transfer without making any
effort to determine the veracity of the
grounds on which the transfer was
sought
and
rejected
the
transfer
application
without
assigning
any
reason.
Case law discussed:
JT 2010(10) SC 26

## Text

3 All] Dileep Singh and another V. State of U.P. and another
1169
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.10.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B.K. NARAYANA, J.

Criliminal Misc. Transfer Appli. No. 591 of 2010

Dileep Singh and another ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Prashant kumar Singh
Sri R.B. Singhal

Counsel for the Complainent:
Sri Mohit Singh
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Transfer of
Criminal Trail-from one court to anotherrejection thereof without recording the
reasons
for
rejection-held-can
not
sustained-concept of reasoned judgment
became indispensable part of basic rule
of law-matter remitted back for fresh
consideration.

Held: Para 16

The learned Sessions Judge, refused the
prayer for transfer without making any
effort to determine the veracity of the
grounds on which the transfer was
sought
and
rejected
the
transfer
application
without
assigning
any
reason.
Case law discussed:
JT 2010(10) SC 26

(Delivered by Hon'ble B.K. Narayana, J.)

1. Learned counsel for the applicants
is permitted to correct the prayer.

2. Heard Sri R.B.Singhal learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prashant
Kumar Singh and Sri Mohit Singhfor
opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for
the State.

3. Since the facts of the case are not
in dispute, with the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties this transfer
application is being finally disposed of at
this stage without calling for any counter
affidavit.

4. The applicants are facing trial for
the offence punishable under Section
323/324/325/498A IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act
arising out of case crime no.770 of 2007,
Police
Station
Chandausi,
District
Moradabad, in case no.427 of 2008, State
Vs Abhijeet Singh and others, pending in
the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandausi, Moradabad. Two
criminal appeals being Criminal Appeal
Nos. 9 and 16 of 2008 Mandakini Vs
State and Madhavendra Singh Vs State
filed by the applicant No.2 and opposite
party No.2 respectively are also pending
before the Additional Sessions Judge,
Chandausi, Moradabad .

5. From the averments made in the
affidavit filed in support of the transfer
application it appears that the applicants
moved a transfer application being
transfer application no.39 of 2010 Dilip
Singh and another Vs State and another
before the Sessions Judge Moradabad.
with a prayer that the aforementioned
cases be transferred from the court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandausi, Moradabad and Additional
Sessions Judge, Chandausi, Moradabad to
any other court of co-ordinate jurisdiction
in the same sessions division.

6. The transfer was sought on the
ground
that
the
ancestors
of
the
complainant/ opposite party No .2 have
1170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
been erstwhile rulers of Chandausi state
and as a result the complainant -opposite
party no.2 commands great influence in
the area and as such there is danger to the
family members of the applicants while
appearing in the concerned criminal misc.
case No.50 of 2010(Dileep Singh Vs
State)
Criminal
Appeal
No.9
of
2008(Mandakanai Vs State) and Criminal
Appeal No.16 of 2008(Madhavendra
Singh Vs State) before the outlying courts
at Chandausi, Moradabad.

7. The transfer was also sought on
the ground that on account of local
influence of the opposite party no.2 no
Advocate was willing to conduct the case
on behalf of the applicants.

8. The learned Sessions Judge by his
order dated 17.9.2010 rejected the prayer
for transfer.

9 Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that the order by which the
transfer application moved on behalf of
the applicants before the Sessions Judge
has been rejected is a non-speaking and
cryptic order and is vitiated by total non
application of mind by the Sessions Judge
to the facts of the case and the materials
brought on record.The learned Sessions
Judge has not recorded any reason for
rejecting the prayer for transfer.

10. He further submitted that the
prayer for transfer made on behalf of the
applicants has been rejected by learned
Sessions Judge without examining the
grounds on which the transfer was sought
on merits.

11. Sri Mohit Singh learned counsel
for the opposite party No.2 submitted that
the learned Sessions Judge did not
commit any illegality or mistake in
rejecting the transfer application moved
before him by the applicants.

12. Learned AGA also advanced
submissions in support of the impugned
order.

13. After having very carefully
examined the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the grounds on which the transfer
has been sought as well as the materials
brought on record and the order passed by
the learned Sessions Judge by which he
rejected applicants' transfer application, I
find that the submissions made by learned
counsel for the applicants have force and
the same are liable to be accepted.

14. The Apex Court in JT 2010(10)
SC 26 Competition Commission of India
Vs Steel Authority of India Limited and
another upon which reliance has been
placed by Sri R.B.Singhal, in paragraph
67 and 68 of the abovementioned
judgement has observed as hereunder:

"The proposition of law whether an
administrative or quasi judicial body,
particularly judicial courts, should record
reasons in support of their decisions or
orders is no more res integra and has been
settled by a recent judgement of this
Court
in
the
case
of
Assistant
Commissioner ,CTDWC V M/s Shukla &
Brothers (JT2010(4)SC 35) para 67)

15. By practice adopted in all courts
and by virtue of judge- made law, the
concept of reasoned judgement has
become an indispensable part of basic rule
of law and in fact, is a mandatory
requirement of the procedural law. Clarity
of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and
3 All] State of U.P. V. Zunab Ali and others
1171
therefore, proper reasoning is foundation
of a just and fair decision. Reference can
be made to Alexander Machinery(Dudley)
Ltd. V Crabtree( 1974 ICR 120) in this
regard. ( Para 68)"

16. Copy of the transfer application
moved by the applicants before the court
below has been filed as Annexure 12 to
the affidavit accompanying the transfer
application. Even the most superficial
reading of the transfer application shows
that the transfer was sought on several
grounds which have already been referred
to by me hereinabove and which need not
be repeated. The learned Sessions Judge ,
refused the prayer for transfer without
making any effort to determine the
veracity of the grounds on which the
transfer was sought and rejected the
transfer application without assigning any
reason.

17. For the aforesaid reasons the order
passed
by
learned
Sessions
Judge,
Moradabad dated 17.9.2010(Annexure 15 to
the affidavit filed in support of the transfer
application), can not be sustained and is
accordingly set aside.

18. The matter is remitted back to the
learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad with a
direction to decide the transfer application
moved by the applicants afresh after
affording opportunity of hearing to all
concerned in accordance with law by a
speaking and reasoned order.

19. Necessary exercise in this regard
shall be completed by him within a period
of one month from the date of production
of certified copy of this order.
---------

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL.SIDE
DATED: 29.11.2010 LUCKNOW

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KANT, J.
THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 804 of 2010

State of U.P.

...Petitioner
Versus
Zunab Ali and others
 ..Respondents

Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945-Rule
49-Recruitment of Drug Inspector-Post
advertised with minimum qualification
prescribed
under
Rule-Subsequent
corrigendum-modifying
the
original
advertisement deleting experience of 18
months-issued by Commission.-whether
corrigendum
issued
by
commission
without
justification?
held-"No"
experience can be there only after
appointment and not prior to that.

Held: Para 15 and 16

The proviso does not lay down any
essential
qualification
for
being
appointed as Inspector, but only speaks
about the period of experience, when
such an Inspector may be authorized for
inspection.

Unless
a
person
is
appointed
as
Inspector, as envisaged in Clause (i),
there would be no occasion for him to
entrust the work of inspection and for
making such authorization, 18 months'
experience is necessary.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.)

1. The delay in filing the special
appeal is condoned.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant Sri Manjiv Shukla and Sri
Kapil Dev, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Sri Ashwani Kumar for the