The court held that cases involving similar issues should be tried together for judicial consistency, acknowledging the discretion to determine joint or separate trials in light of evidentiary differences.

JUDGMENT :

Raj Beer Singh, J.

1. This transfer application has been moved on behalf of State under Section 407 Cr.P.C. for transfer of Criminal Case No. 961 of 2021 ( State vs. Mukhtar Ansari ), arising out of Case Crime No.121 of 2021, under Section 21 /25 ARMS ACT , P.S. Muhammadabad, District Ghazipur, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Court M.P./M.L.A. Ghazipur to the Court of Special Judge M.P./M.L.A. Varanasi and the same be connected with S.T. No.22 of 2005, pending in the court of Special Judge M.P./M.L.A. Varanasi.

2. Heard Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State/applicant and Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

3. The main ground raised on behalf of the applicant/State is that the S.T. No. 22 of 2005, State vs. Mukhtar Ansari , crime No. 266/1990, under section 467/468/420/120-B IPC, PS Mohammedabad, Ghazipur is being tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Spl. Court No. 1, Varanasi and main allegation in that case is that the opposite party No.1/accused Mukhtar Aansari has obtained two arms license by way of cheating and forgery, whereas in the case crime No. 121/2021, under section 21/25 ARMS ACT , P.S. Muhammabad, Ghazipur, the allegation against the opposite party No. 1/accused is that after cancellation of above referred two arms license, he did not deposit/surrender the said two weapons and thus he was in un-authorised possession of the same and this case is pending before the court of C.J.M., Ghazipur. It was submitted by the learned AGA that both cases pertain to same issue and connected with each other and it would be in the interest of justice that both the cases be decided by one and the same court so that conflicting verdict may be avoided.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party/accused has opposed the transfer application and submitted that S.T. No. 22 of 2005, State V Mukhtar Ansari, pending before the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Spl. Court No. 1, Varanasi, is at advance stage of trial and that nine prosecution witnesses have already been examined and thus, the transfer of case crime No. 121/2021, under section 21/25 ARMS ACT from the court at Ghazipur to Varanasi would delay the trial of S.T. No. 22 of 2005, as the case crime No.121 of 2021 is in stage of charge. It was also stated that in both the cases, witnesses are different and thus, they cannot be tried together.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. Section 407 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

"407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals.-(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court-

(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or

(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or

(c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice,

it may order-

(i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under sections 177 to 185 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence;

(ii) that any particular case, or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction;

(iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session; or

(iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before