2011 Supreme(SC) 1119

2011 (8) Supreme 705
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Swatanter Kumar and Ranjana Prakash Desai, JJ
Ashish Chadha — Appellant
versus
Smt. Asha Kumari & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 893 of 2005
Decided on : 2-12-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ¯ Section 401 ¯ The High Court in revision cannot appreciate evidence ¯ It is the trial court which has to decide whether evidence on record is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused so as to frame charge against him. (Para 13)
(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ¯ Section 407 ¯ Where there is no material on the record to substantiate the fear expressed by the applicant that he/she would not get a fair trial, the High Court should not transfer the case from one Court to another Court. Such transfers ordered merely on the say-so of a party have a demoralizing effect on the trial courts. Unless a very strong case based on concrete material is made out, such transfers should not be ordered. (Para 8)

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 ¯ Sections 420, 218, 467, 468, 471 and 120B ¯ Prosecution of the first respondent MLA, under the aforesaid sections on allegations that the first respondent and her husband deceased in connivance with Revenue Officials manipulated the revenue records, forged documents and got the land belonging to the Government transferred in the name of her husband ¯ Special Judge Chamba framing charges ¯ In revision preferred by first respondent High Court setting aside the order of Special Judge framing charges against the respondents on the grounds that the accused were denied opportunity of being heard, no prima facie case was made out against the accused and transferring the case to the Court of another Special Judge for trial ¯ Hence this appeal ¯ Held, the High Court overstepped revisional jurisdiction in appreciating evidence, respondents were given full opportunity of hearing, had engaged counsel at the stage of framing charges, there was no violation of the provisions of Section 301 Cr. P.C. and Art 22(1) of the Constitution, transfer of the case from the Court Special Judge Chamba to the Court of the Special Judge Kangla on the desire expressed by the respondent was not proper as such transfer of cases have a demoralizing effect on the trial Courts ¯ High Court was also not justified in quashing charges against all the accused passes as only respondent no. 1 had filed revision and when no such prayer was made ¯ High Court’s order was set aside and the order of the Special Judge framing charges against the accused persons was confirmed, Special Judge Chamba was directed to proceed further in the case according to law.

        (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ¯ Section 401 ¯ The High Court in revision cannot appreciate evidence ¯ It is the trial court which has to decide whether evidence on record is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused so as to frame charge against him. (Para 13)

        (c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ¯ Section 407 ¯ Where there is no material on the record to substantiate the fear expressed by the applicant that he/she would not get a fair trial, the High Court should not transfer the case from one Court to another Court ¯ Such transfers ordered merely on the say-so of a party have a demoralizing effect on the trial courts ¯ Unless a very strong case based on concrete material is made out, such transfers should not be ordered. (Para 8)

        (d) Constitution of India, Art 136 ¯ Article 136, in express terms does not confer a right of appeal on a party as such, but it confers wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases ¯ In the instant case the allegations against the first respondent of grabbing the Government land being serious and there was prima facie case against the first respondent, hence it was found a fit case for interference by the Supreme Court under Art 136 of the Constitution ¯ The original complainant had died, the present appeal filed by the son of another MLA who had filed election petition against the respondent was entertained ¯ In larger public interest the appeal was not dismissed in limine ¯ Appeal was held maintainable. (Paras 5, 6, 7 and 8)

       Facts of the case

        Prosecution of the first respondent MLA under Sections 420, 218, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, on allegations that the first respondent and her husband deceased in connivance with Revenue Officials manipulated the revenue records, forged documents and got the land belonging to the Government transferred in the name of her husband ¯ Special Judge Chamba framed charges ¯ In revision preferred by first respondent High Court set aside the order of Special Judge framing charges against the respondents on the grounds that the accused were denied opportunity of being heard, no prima facie case was made out against the accused and transferred the case to the Court of another Special Judge ¯ Hence this appeal

       Findings

        Held, the High Court overstepped revisional jurisdiction in appreciating evidence, respondents were given full opportunity of hearing, had engaged counsel at the stage of framing charges, there was no violation of the provisions of Section 301 Cr. P.C. and Art 22(1) of the Constitution, transfer of the case from the Court Special Judge Chamba to the Court of the Special Judge Kangla on the desire expressed by the respondent was not proper as such transfer of cases have a demoralizing effect on the trial Courts ¯ High Court was also not justified in quashing charge against all the accused persons as only respondent no. 1 had filed revision and when no such prayer was made ¯ High Court’s order was set aside, the order of the Special Judge framing charges against the accused persons was confirmed, Special Judge Chamba was directed to proceed further in the case according to law.