Back
Criminal Trial Can Be Transferred; Accused Cannot Insist On Same Judge:
Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the has ruled that a criminal trial which has not crossed the stage of recording the accused's statement under , final arguments, or reserved judgment can be lawfully transferred to another court, and an accused has no to insist that the same presiding officer continue hearing the case.
The Court dismissed a petition filed by Krishna Murthy @ Murthy, an accused facing trial for murder under , who challenged a notification re-allocating police stations among sessions courts in Bengaluru City. The notification, issued by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, transferred his case from the to . The petitioner argued that since the trial judge had already recorded 20 prosecution witnesses, he alone should decide the case, as he had the opportunity to observe the demeanour of witnesses.
The Notification's Carefully Crafted Exceptions
The impugned notification dated re-allocated police stations to sessions courts for better administration. However, it carved out specific exceptions: cases where the statement under had commenced, where final arguments had begun, or where judgment was reserved were permitted to remain with the existing court. The petitioner's trial, the Court noted, was still at the stage of securing the presence of PW-20, the investigating officer, for recording his evidence. It had not reached any of the protected stages.
"This Court cannot judicially engraft into an administrative notification that which its author has consciously chosen not to incorporate,"
Justice Nagaprasanna observed.
Arguments on Both Sides
Senior advocate , appearing for the petitioner, contended that the transfer was illegal and an abuse of power. He argued that under , a judge who has recorded evidence should dispose of the case, and prohibits a Sessions Judge from withdrawing a case from an Additional Sessions Judge once trial has commenced. He placed reliance on the Division Bench decision in Amrithappa v. State of Karnataka (1981 SCC OnLine Kar 197).
The State Public Prosecutor and counsel for the High Court administration countered that the transfer was a routine administrative exercise, that no prejudice would be caused, and that an accused cannot choose a particular court for trial. They emphasized that the successor court would continue the trial from the same stage.
Court's Legal Analysis: Continuity Not Personal Attachment
The High Court examined the statutory scheme under the
(
), particularly Sections 365 (corresponding to
), 448 (Section 408
), and 449 (Section 409
). It held that
is the legislative bridge that ensures continuity of trial when a case is transferred from one judge to another.
"The change of forum does not wipe the slate clean; nor does it compel the criminal process to retrace every step already lawfully taken,"
the Court said.
The Court distinguished the administrative law maxim
"
"
from criminal procedure.
"A principle of administrative law cannot be employed to defeat an express command of criminal procedure. When the statute itself contemplates that one Judge may record evidence and another may, upon lawful succession or transfer, proceed with the case, the maxim must necessarily yield to the legislative mandate,"
Justice Nagaprasanna wrote.
Referring to the 's decision in Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal (2011) 9 SCC 638, the Court noted that is an exception to the rule that only the judge who heard the evidence can pronounce guilt. It was designed to prevent trials upon a change of presiding officer.
Key Observations
"If every transfer after commencement of trial were impermissible, the Legislature would scarcely have found it necessary to enact Section 365 of the ... The statute thus preserves the continuity of the trial notwithstanding discontinuity in the person presiding over the Court."
"An accused has a right to a before a competent and impartial Court; he does not possess a to insist upon trial before a particular Judge."
"Administrative decisions concerning distribution, allocation and re-allocation of judicial business are best left within the domain of those entrusted with the administration of Courts. undoubtedly remains available, but it does not sit as an appellate authority over every administrative arrangement concerning distribution of judicial work."
Decision and Implications
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the notification was a valid exercise of administrative power and that the petitioner's case did not fall within any of the protective exceptions. The ruling clarifies that Sessions Judges have the authority to transfer cases under , and the limitations under (regarding withdrawal before commencement of trial) do not restrict that power. The decision reinforces that accused persons cannot pick and choose their trial court and that administrative reallocation of cases based on territorial jurisdiction is permissible, provided it is not arbitrary or .
The judgment serves as a significant guide for trial courts and litigants on the interplay between administrative convenience and the right to a in criminal proceedings.
