SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 1088

2009(5) Supreme 95
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., P. Sathasivam and J.M. Panchal, JJ.
Capt. Amarinder Singh — Petitioner(s)
versus
Prakash Singh Badal & Ors. — Respondent(s)
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 235 of 2008
with
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 179 of 2008
Decided on : 14-05-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Altaf Ahmed, P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Advs., Gaurav Agrawal, Abhijit P. Medh, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Harish N. Salve, Ashok Desai, Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, Ravi Shanker Prasad, C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Advs., Vikram Chaudhari, Nikhil Jain, Ms. Aparajita Singh, Madhur Seth, D. Mahesh Babu, Ajay Pal, Mrs. Jaishree Anand, Ajay Bansal, Kuldip Singh, Gagan Deep Sharma, Sunil Kumar Jain, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
For a transfer of a criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 406 and 407 – When it is shown that public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously undermined, any party can seek the transfer of case /s 407 or 406 – For a transfer of a criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done. (Paras 10 and 12)

        (2004) 3 SCC 767; (2000) 6 SCC 204; (2005) 8 SCC 771 – Relied upon.

        (2007) 1 SCC 1 – Referred.

        (b) Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 – Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21. (Para 23)

        (c) Conduct of Advocate – The public prosecutor cannot act on the dictates of the State Government – He has to act objectively as he is also an Officer of the Court. (Para 23)

        (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 406 and 407 – Mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case alone is not enough for ordering transfer of a case. (Para 23)

       Facts of the case :

        1. These two transfer petitions have been preferred under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking transfer of the case titled as “State of Punjab vs. Prakash Singh Badal and Ors.” relating to FIR No. 15 dated 24.06.2003 filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 (1) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Ropar to any other suitable Court of competent jurisdiction in New Delhi.

        2. Capt. Amarinder Singh is the petitioner in Transfer Petition No. 235 of 2008. M/s Jeet Mohinder Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Mangat Ram Bansal who are all members of Legislative Assembly are the petitioners in Transfer Petition No. 179 of 2008. Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 are the accused in the case relating to FIR No. 15 and 11th Respondent is the State of Punjab.

        3. FIR No. 15 dated 24.06.2003 filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 13(1) and (2) of the PC Act was registered at the Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad, Mohali on the complaint of one Mr. Balwant Singh son of Mr. Sukhdev Singh. This FIR was filed for offences committed by Mr. Prakash Singh Badal (Accused No.1), Mr. Sukhbir Singh Badal (Accused No.2) and other family members for alleged acts of corruption committed during the previous tenure of Accused No.1 as Chief Minister of the State of Punjab for the period 1997-2002, for collecting black money, owning/possessing Nammi & Benami movable and immovable properties both in India and abroad.

        4. Thereafter in February 2007 accused no. 1 became Chief Minister of Punjab.

        5. The witnesses as well as the investigation officer resiled from their statements. In these circumstances, these transfer petitions have been filed.

       Finding of the Court :

        Petitioners have not made out a case that they have reasonable apprehension of not availing justice in the State of Punjab.

       Result : Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.—

1. These two transfer petitions have been preferred under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking transfer of the case titled as “State of Punjab vs. Prakash Singh Badal and Ors.” relating to FIR No. 15 dated 24.06.2003 filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 7,8,9,10, 13 (1) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Ropar to any other suitable Court of competent jurisdiction in New Delhi.

2. Capt. Amarinder Singh is the petitioner in Transfer Petition No. 235 of 2008. M/s Jeet Mohinder Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Mangat Ram Bansal who are all members of Legislative Assembly are the petitioners in Transfer Petition No. 179 of 2008. Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 are the accused in the case relating to FIR No. 15 and 11th Respondent is the State of Punjab. Since, facts are common in both the transfer petitions, we propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment. For convenience, reference to parties will be as arrayed in Transfer Petition No. 235 of 2008.

3. Brief facts, as stated in the Transfer Petition No. 235 of 2008, are as follows:-

a) FIR No. 15 dated 24.06.2003 filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 13(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered at the Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad, Mohali on the complaint of one Mr. Balwant Singh son of Mr. Sukhdev Singh. This FIR was filed for offences committed by Mr. Prakash Singh Badal (Accused No.1), Mr. Sukhbir Singh Badal (Accused No.2) and other family members for alleged acts of corruption committed during the previous tenure of Accused No.1 as Chief Minister of the State of Punjab for the period 1997-2002, for collecting black money, owning/possessing Nammi & Benami movable and immovable properties both in India and abroad. Summons were issued by the Special Judge, Ropar, Punjab on 01.12.2003.

b) Against the summons, Mr. Prakash Singh Badal and Mr. Sukhbir Singh Badal filed a Special Leave Petition being SLP (Crl.) No. 5252 of 2003. Along with these proceedings, they also filed a Transfer Petition before this Court being T.P. (Crl.) No. 307 of 2003 challenging, inter alia, the jurisdiction of the Special Judge, Ropar. When both the petitions came up for hearing before this Court on 12.12.2003, the Special Leave Petition as well as the Transfer Petition were withdrawn by the Accused-Petitioners. The above-said Transfer Petition was withdrawn with liberty to file any other Transfer Petition in future and the same will be considered on its own merits as pleaded in that petition.

c) Mr. Prakash Singh Badal and Mr. Sukhbir Singh Badal having withdrawn the above Special Leave Petition and Transfer Petition, moved an application on 16.01.2004 before the Special Judge, Ropar raising question relating to the competence and jurisdiction of the Special Court. It was submitted that the Special Court had no jurisdiction in the matter of FIR No. 15 of 24.06.2003 and that it could neither proceed nor adjudicate upon the said matter. By order dated 29.05.2004, the learned Special Judge, dismissed the said application holding that it had the requisite jurisdiction in the matter. Aggrieved by that order, on 30.06.2004, the accused filed CWP No. 9410 of 2004 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

d) The High Court heard the said Writ Petition and after considering all the legal issues raised by the accused, rejected the same by a detailed judgment dated 02.09.2004 directing the Special Judge to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than a year from the pronouncement of the said judgment. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the accused filed Special Leave Petition being SLP (Civil) No. 19640 of 2004 before this Court.

e) By this time, on the issue of law relating to sa




















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top