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

2010 Supreme(SC) 666

2010 (6) Supreme 279
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Bhiaru Ram & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. — Respondents
Transfer petition (Crl.) No. 37 of 2009
Decided on : 3-8-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Mere apprehension that justice may not be done at a particular forum and mere inconvenience of the petitioner cannot be basis for transfer of a case.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 406(1) – Mere apprehension that justice may not be done at a particular forum and mere inconvenience of the petitioner cannot be basis for transfer of a case. (Paras 5 and 9)

        Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 1233-1237 of 2008 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        1. This is a transfer petition.

        2. FIR was registered for offences under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against one Shri B.R. Meena. At the relevant time, he was posted as Commissioner of Income-Tax, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai.

        3. The transfer of case from Mumbai to Jaipur has been prayed on the ground that all the petitioners are residents of the State of Rajasthan and most of the alleged disproportionate assets/properties are situated at Rajasthan and most of the witnesses are from Rajasthan, Jaipur, in particular.

       Finding of the Court:

        No case made out for transfer of the case.

       Result : Petition dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. —

1) The petitioners, numbering nine, have approached this Court under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking transfer of Special Case No. 22 of 2008 pending before the Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai, being CBI Case No. RC/03(A)/2005-ACU-05- CBI, New Delhi, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Jaipur.

2) Factual Matrix On 29.09.2005, a First Information Report (in short “FIR”) was registered at New Delhi bearing FIR No. RC 3A/2005/ACU(V), for offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against one Shri B.R. Meena, who is respondent No.3 herein. At the relevant time, respondent No.3 was posted as Commissioner of Income-Tax, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The substance of allegations in the FIR against Shri B.R. Meena was that he was in possession of disproportionate assets from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.2005. During the said period, he was posted at various places such as Calcutta, Ahmedabad, Jaipur and Mumbai. After carrying out the search at the official residence of Shri B.R. Meena and his family members at various places, finally, the C.B.I., on 27.03.2008, filed charge sheet before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai. In the said charge sheet, petitioner Nos. 1-9 was arrayed as accused Nos. 5-13.

3) Reasons for transfer According to the petitioners, as per the charge sheet, most of the alleged disproportionate assets/properties are situated at Rajasthan and most of the witnesses are from Rajasthan, Jaipur, in particular. As far as the petitioners are concerned, the allegations against them are of having abetted Shri B.R. Meena-Respondent No. 3 herein and Smt. Champa Devi, wife of Shri B.R. Meena, Respondent No. 4 herein, by fabricating false evidence through preparation of false Agreement to Sell in order to help them for justifying the huge cash recoveries. All the petitioners are residents of the State of Rajasthan. Most of the alleged disproportionate assets are situated at Rajasthan and FIRs were registered at Delhi, therefore, the CBI ought to have filed charge sheet at Jaipur, Rajasthan. It is also stated by the petitioners that since all of them hail from Rajasthan and most of the witnesses to be examined are also residents of Rajasthan, for convenience, the case pending before the Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai be transferred to Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4) Heard Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General, for the contesting respondents.

5) Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers this Court to transfer any case or appeal from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court. We are concerned about sub-clause (1) of Section 406 which reads as under:

“406. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals - (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court.”

It is clear from the abovesaid provision that for the ends of justice, this Court can transfer any criminal case or appeal to any place. In order to transfer a case from one State to another or from one place to another, there must be “reasonable apprehension” on the part of the party to a case that justice may not be done. Mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done, cannot be the basis of transfer. In fact, in the case on hand, it is not the claim of the petitioners that they may not get fair justice at Special Court, CBI, Greater Mumbai but they are seekin








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