The petitioner herein is the first accused in C.C 254/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Tirur. Pending the proceedings he made an application as C.MP No. 10666/2011 for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. On dismissal of the said application the petitioner preferred revision before this court as Crl.R.P 238/14. In the said proceeding this court, by order dated 3.4.2014 set aside the order of the learned Magistrate, and directed the learned Magistrate to pass fresh orders judiciously and properly. Thus Crl.M.P 10666/2011 is now pending before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner now seeks orders for transfer the case to some other court on the ground that his application for discharge is kept pending by the learned Magistrate without any reason, and so he apprehends that he would not get justice from the learned Magistrate. As required by this court, the learned Magistrate submitted report on 9.10.2014 explaining the circumstance in which the petitioner's application for discharge happened to be kept pending.
It is reported by the learned Magistrate that, by the time an application was filed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate thought it not proper and legal to take up and dispose of the discharge application before decision is taken on the application for further investigation made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. It is also reported that there is no regular Assistant Public prosecutor in that court, and that services of a person on additional charge is available only on two days in a week. There is nothing to show that the petitioner's application for discharge was deliberately or dishonestly kept pending by the learned Magistrate. The explanation given by the learned Magistrate is quiet acceptable that when he proceeded to dispose of the application to discharge as directed by this court, another application came from the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for further investigation. I find nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate, and I find that in such a situation the accused cannot seek transfer of the case to some other court. The ground alleged by the petitioner is not at all sufficient and acceptable for ordering transfer of the case to some other court. However, the learned Magistrate can be directed to expedite consideration and decision in the two applications.
In the result, this petition is dismissed, however with a direction to the learned Magistrate that consideration and disposal of the two applications shall be expedited.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab