Transfer CrPC S 406

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 406   - Supreme Court Rules, Order XXXIX – Transfer  - Transfer power under section 406 of the Code is to be invoked sparingly -  Only when fair justice is in peril, a plea for transfer might be considered -  The court however will have to be fully satisfied that impartial trial is not possible -  Equally important is to verify that the apprehension of not getting a level playing field, is based on some credible material and not just conjectures and surmises - While assurance of a fair trial needs to be respected, the plea for transfer of case should not be entertained on mere apprehension of a hyper sensitive person - While considering a plea for transfer, the convenience of parties would be a relevant consideration - It can't just be the convenience of the petitioner but also of the Complainant, the Witnesses, the Prosecution besides the larger issue of trial being conducted under the jurisdictional Court -  Relative convenience and difficulties of all the parties involved in the process are taken into account -  Petitioner is not pointing any fingers towards the courts and his apprehension is based only on the action taken by the State -  The transfer of trials from one state to another would inevitably reflect on the credibility of the State's judiciary and but for compelling factors and clear situation of deprivation of fair justice, the transfer power should not be invoked.  Held, In his pleadings and arguments, the petitioner in my assessment has failed to demonstrate that because of what he endured in 2018, it is not possible for the courts in the state to dispense justice objectively and without any bias. It can't also be overlooked that the petitioner is involved in several cases and this year itself has generated few on his own in the state of Uttarakhand. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that justice for the petitioner can only be ensured by transfer of three cases mentioned in these petitions. When the nature of the three cases are examined, it is seen that two of the cases are property and Will related matters. One of this case is pending for last over a decade. Therefore, this court finds it difficult to accept that the cases are on account of journalistic activities of the petitioner. In fact the credibility of the journalistic activity of the petitioner is itself questioned, by a member of his sting operation team, in the third case. In such circumstances, the prosecution in the concerned three cases can't prima facie be said to be on account of malicious prosecution. #2020 SCeJ 1873 

Supreme Court e@Journal

delivers full text with headnotes 

Daily in your Inbox

Subscription 2021 @ Rs. 1000/-

Subscription starts from 01.10.2020 till 31.12.2021 

Fill in below to Subscribe