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) 1113

2010 (7) Supreme 729
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain, V.S. Sirpurkar and G.S. Singhvi, JJ.
Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr. — Petitioners
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12981 of 2008
Decided on : 19-11-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
CBI is entitled to maintain application u/s 406 Cr.P.C.
A prayer for transfer should be allowed only when there is a well-substantiated apprehension that justice will not be dispensed impartially, objectively and without any bias.
The special Court CBI being overburdened cannot be ground for transfer of case.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 406(2) – Transfer of case – Locus standi – Once a notification has been issued by the State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, CBI assumes role of an investigating agency and the prosecuting agency – therefore, it is entitled to move an application under Section 406(2). (Paras 15 and 16)

        (1988) 2 SCC 602 – Relied upon

        (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 406 – A true and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution – As and when it is shown that the public confidence in the fairness of a particular trial is likely to be seriously undermined, Supreme Court can transfer any case or appeal from one High Court to another High Court or from one criminal court subordinate to one High Court to another criminal court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court, to meet the ends of justice – A prayer for transfer should be allowed only when there is a well-substantiated apprehension that justice will not be dispensed impartially, objectively and without any bias – Broad factors to be considered for transfer of a case stated. (Paras 17 and 24)

        (2004) 4 SCC 158; (1979) 4 SCC 167; (2000) 6 SCC 204; (2004) 3 SCC 767; (2009) 6 SCC 260; (2000) 7 SCC 129 – Relied upon

        (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 406 – The special Court CBI being overburdened cannot be ground for transfer of case – In that event the High Court may request the State Government to create another court (Para 26)

       Facts of the case:

        1. Criminal Case under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 8, 9, 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered on the written complaint of Smt. Rama Jain, Special Judge and Vigilance Officer, District Court, Ghaziabad against one late Ashutosh Asthana, the then Central Nazir, District Court, Ghaziabad and 82 other accused persons which included 13 Class-III employees, 30 Class-IV employees of District Court, Ghaziabad and 39 outsiders. It was alleged that late Ashutosh Asthana in collusion with other accused named in the FIR fraudulently withdrew huge sums of money in the name of GPF of Class-IV employees of District Court, Ghaziabad.

        2. Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to CBI.

        3. In the affidavit filed by the CBI, it is stated that there is an immediate need to transfer the trial of the case to any other place outside the State of U.P., preferably Delhi

       Finding of the Court:

        No case is made out for transfer of the case.

       Result : SLP dismissed.

       

ORDER

D.K. Jain, J. —

1. The short question raised by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “the CBI”), Anti Corruption Branch, Ghaziabad in their affidavit dated 15th July 2010, for our consideration is whether or not the trial arising out of the chargesheet filed by the CBI in Case RC- 1(A)/2008/CBI/ACB/Ghaziabad and the local police, Ghaziabad in Case Crime No.152/2008 PS Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad deserves to be transferred from the Court of Special Judge, CBI at Ghaziabad to some other court of competent jurisdiction, preferably at Delhi under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi, with a direction to the Trial Court to conduct the trial of the case on a day to day basis, and to complete it within a period of two years.

2. Since the case, commonly known as “the Ghaziabad P.F. Scam”, giving rise to the afore-stated prayer, involves violation of the standards of judicial behaviour, which is expected to be of the highest order, be it on or off the Bench, we feel concerned by the alleged events and have given our anxious consideration to the issue raised. In order to appreciate the controversy, a few material facts may be noticed. These are:

Pursuant to and in furtherance of the findings of the Vigilance Department of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and subsequent authorisation given by the High Court, Case Crime No.152/2008 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) and Sections 8, 9, 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) was registered at PS Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad on the written complaint of Smt. Rama Jain, Special Judge and Vigilance Officer, District Court, Ghaziabad on 15th February 2008 against one late Ashutosh Asthana, the then Central Nazir, District Court, Ghaziabad and 82 other accused persons which included 13 Class-III employees, 30 Class-IV employees of District Court, Ghaziabad and 39 outsiders. It was alleged that late Ashutosh Asthana in collusion with other accused named in the FIR fraudulently withdrew huge sums of money in the name of GPF of Class-IV employees of District Court, Ghaziabad.

Subsequently, the present special leave petition was filed with a request to transfer the investigation of Case Crime No.152 of 2008, PS Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad to the CBI. During pendency of the proceedings, Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a Notification dated 10th September 2008, under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short “the DSPE Act”) for the transfer of above mentioned case to the CBI, which was also placed before this Court for consideration. Vide order dated 23rd September 2008, this Court transferred the investigation in the said case to CBI, inter alia, observing that “It is made clear that though we have directed the matters to be listed after three months, the CBI, shall be free to file the final report or chargesheet, as the case may be at an earlier point of time and to proceed thereafter in accordance with law. The court before which the final report or chargesheet is filed shall deal with the report or chargesheet, as the case may be, as required in law.” In view of the aforesaid order of this Court, the instant case was registered by the Anti Corruption Branch, CBI, Ghaziabad as Case RC- 1(A)/2008/CBI/ACB/Ghaziabad against late Ashutosh Asthana and 82 other accused persons on 1st October 2008.

3. The CBI filed periodical status reports in this Court with regard to the progress made in the investigations from time to time. Ultimately, the final report was filed by the CBI on 30th July 2010. According to the final report, the investigations had revealed that during the period 2001- 2008, late Ashutosh Asthana while working as Bill Clerk and Central Nazir, District Court, Ghaziabad, by abusing his official position as public servant entered into a criminal conspiracy with 6 District Judges/Incharge District Judge and 71 others












































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