The power to transfer cases under S. 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not barred in cases made over by the State Government for trial to a Special Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Transfer of cases - Power of Supreme Court - Case made over by State Government for trial to Special Judge under Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 - Whether can be transferred - S. 527, Cr. P. C. - Criminal Law Amendment Act (46 of 1952), Ss. 6, 7, 8.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a member of All India Service, was being prosecuted for offences under Section 120B/161 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5 (1) (a), (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He apprehended that he would not receive justice in the State of Rajasthan due to the hostility of certain persons, including the then Home Minister, two Police Officers, and the State Government.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the apprehension of the petitioner was not reasonable and that there was no material to show that the persons who were allegedly hostile to him were interfering or were likely to interfere with the course of justice. The Court further held that the power to transfer cases under S. 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not barred in cases made over by the State Government for trial to a Special Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952.
Issues: 1. Whether the Supreme Court has the power to transfer a case made over by the State Government for trial to a Special Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952? 2. Whether the apprehension of the petitioner that he would not receive justice in the State of Rajasthan was reasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to transfer cases under S. 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not barred in cases made over by the State Government for trial to a Special Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. 2. The apprehension of the petitioner that he would not receive justice in the State of Rajasthan was not reasonable as there was no material to show that the persons who were allegedly hostile to him were interfering or were likely to interfere with the course of justice.
Final Decision: The petition for transfer of the case from the Special Judge, Bharatpur, was dismissed.

Judgement

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : This is a petition under S. 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the transfer of a criminal case (No. 2 of 1964-State v. Gurcharan Dass Chadha I. P. S.) which is pending in the Court of Special Judge, Bharatpur, Rajasthan to another criminal court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to a High Court other than the High Court of Rajasthan. The Petitioner is the accused in that case and he is being tried under Ss. 120-B/16, Indian Penal Code and S. 5(1)(a)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. The petitioner is a member of an All India Service and his prosecution has been sanctioned by the Government of India. In December, 1962, he was serving as Superintendent of Police and was selected to be Commandant of 8th Batallion on Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. He avers that he took over as Commandant on January 7, 1963 but was placed under suspension the same day and a case was registered on January 12, 1968 which was resulted in the present prosecution against him. The petitioner apprehends for reasons to be stated presently that he is not likely to get a fair, just and impartial trial in the State of Rajasthan owing to the hostility and influence of the then Law Minister who was also Minister incharge of Home Department of the State, the Additional Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corruption, and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, Jaipur. In support of his petition he has referred to many incidents and filed many documents. He has sworn an affidavit that he entertains an apprehension that these persons would interfere with the trial of the case in the State of Rajasthan and that a transfer of the case outside the State is in the interest of justice.

3. The State Government has opposed the application strenuously and has questioned the jurisdiction of this Court to transfer under the powers conferred on it by S. 527, Code of Criminal Procedure a case made over by the Government of the State of Rajasthan for trial to a Special Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Act 46 of 1952). In addition, the State Government joins issue on the facts alleged and the merits of the claim for the transfer of the case.

4. While this petition was pending the State Government served the petitioner with a notice and a charge-sheet to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for breach of R. No. 8 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1954, because he had communicated

directly/indirectly official documents and information to Government servants/other persons to whom he was not authorised to communicate such documents/information

as indicated and detailed in a statement of allegations accompanying the notice and the charge. The State Government has appended to this charge two appendices giving details of 31 and 16 documents, respectively, which were said to have been so communicated by the petitioner to his counsel Messrs. R. K. Rastogi and D. P. Gupta, Advocates of Jodhpur and others named as non-petitioners in a writ petition which he had filed in the High Court of Rajasthan (No. 794 of 1964) and which he subsequently withdrew on December 23, 1964 before taking action to file the present petition. The notice, the charge and the statement of allegations accompanying them were signed by Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Special Secretary to Government. On receiving this charge, the petitioner moved another petition in this Court for taking action against Mr. Sharma and the Government of Rajasthan for contempt of this Court. At an earlier hearing, where we were considering the petition for transfer, the other petition was brought to our notice and we were about to order issuance of notices to the contemners but the Advocate-General of the Government of Rajasthan took notice of the petition and offered to take action in respect thereof. As a result the State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary to the Government and Mr. Sharma separately filed their replies to th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document