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

2000 Supreme(Ori) 381

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
P.K. Tripathy, J.
MANJULATA BEHERA - APPELLANT
Versus
RAMESH CHANDAR BEHERA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4682 of 2000
Decided On : 07-12-2000

Advocates Appeared:
S.S. Das, B.R. Das, R.P. Mohanty and K. Behera, for the Appellant; S.K. Mishra, S.C., S.K. Sahoo, M.K. Biswal, J. Mittar and D.R. Nanda, Advocates, for the Respondent

The main legal point established is that the power under Section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is dominantly administrative in nature and should be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the law.

Headnote:

Transfer of Case - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 410, Code of Criminal Procedure

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought the transfer of a criminal case from one court to another, citing loss of confidence in the presiding officer and convenience as grounds for transfer.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the power under Section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is dominantly administrative in nature and should be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the law. The court also rejected the petitioner's grounds for transfer.

Issues: The issues involved the exercise of power under Section 410, Code of Criminal Procedure and the validity of the grounds for transfer.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power under Section 410 is administrative in nature and should be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the law. The court also found that the petitioner's grounds for transfer were not credible.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for transfer of the case and advised the petitioner to seek protection from the Superintendent of Police for her appearances as a witness.

JUDGMENT :

P.K. Tripathy, J. - The informant in G.R. Case No. 657 of 1997 has filed this application seeking the relief of transfer of the said G.R. Case from the Court of J.M.F.C., Basudevpur to any other competent Court at Bhadrak, Baripada or Balasore. From the cause title, it appears that she is a resident of Baripada. The two accused persons are the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in this case. The opposite party No. 1 is the husband of the Petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 is her father-in-law.

2. Initially, the case was pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak who took cognizance of the offence and after appearance of the accused persons proceeded with the trial. On 1.2.2000 an application u/s 410, Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by opposite party No. 1 praying for transfer of the case from the file of the S.D.J.M. on the ground of losing confidence with the Presiding Officer for making a comment on the lawyer at the time of cross-examination of the present Petitioner who was being examined as P.W. No. 5. In that respect, on being asked by this Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (in shor 'C.J.M.') has submitted a report explaining the circumstance under which he passed the administrative order for transfer of the case from the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak to the Court of J.M.F.C. at that station.

3. No doubt, Section 410, Code of Criminal Procedure invests a very wide power with the C.J.M. for withdrawal of any case from any Court subordinate to him and to make over any case to any such Court or Magistrate. That power is invested with the C.J.M. with a view to see that the criminal justice system functions in a proper and better manner in the courts of magistrates. A bare perusal of the provision in Section 410, Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that the power and jurisdiction provided therein is dominantly administrative in nature because Sub-section (1) of Section 410 authorises the C.J.M. to withdraw any case from any Magistrate subordinate to him or to recall any case which he has made over to any Magistrate subordinate to him for the purpose of inquiry or trial, as the case may be, by himself or by any other Magistrate having the competency (power and jurisdiction) to enquire into or try such cases. Sub-section (2) of Section 410, empowers the cognizance-taking Magistrate to recall any case made over by him to any other Magistrate for the purpose of inquiry or trial, as the case may be, by himself. Section 410 does not require any applications to be made before the Magistrate for exercise of such power either by the C.J.M. or by the cognizance-taking Judicial Magistrate.

4. Section 410 has its berth in Chapter XXXI in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. That Chapter retains within it Sections 406 to 412. Section 406 Provides for the judicial and administrative power of the Supreme Court relating to transfer of cases and appeals etc. Section 407 similarly provides for transfer and withdrawal of cases and appeals etc. by the High Courts from subordinate Courts thereof. Section 408 invests the judicial power as well as the administrative power with the Sessions Judge to transfer cases and appeals from one criminal Court to another in his Sessions Division. Sub-section (2) of Section 408 provides that to exercise such power, Sessions Judge may act either on the report of the lower Court or on the application of a party interested or on his own initiation, Sub-section (1) of Section 409, provides for withdrawal of a case or appeal from the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge or C.J. Ms. an Sub-section (2) empowers the Sessions Judge to recall a case or appeal from the file of the Additional Sessions Judge before commencement of the trial or hearing of the case and appeal as the case may be. After withdrawal or recall of such case or appeal, the Sessions Judge may either try the case or hear the appeal or may make it over to another Court in accordance with law. As already noted, Section 410 authorises the C.












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
whatsapp-icon Back to top