Back
Orders Transfer of Trials Against Ex-Corbett Director to Special CBI Court
In a significant step to avoid and ensure , the has directed the transfer of two vigilance corruption trials—against former senior forest officials, including the erstwhile Director of the Corbett Tiger Reserve—from the to the . Justice Siddhartha Sah, hearing the ’s application under Section 447 of the , ruled that once the CBI had taken over the investigation and filed its before the designated CBI court, continuing the anywhere else would be “not in consonance with the jurisdiction vested in the CBI Court.”
A formal transfer becomes necessary
The dispute originated in 2022 when the , registered an (No. 06/2022) for large‑scale illegalities inside the tiger reserve. Acting on a , the High Court had directed the CBI to re‑register the case. The agency did so on 11 October 2023 as RC0072023A0008, invoking sections for cheating and forgery, the , and the . By May 2024 the , had supplied all case documents to the CBI, and the central agency completed its investigation. On 30 April 2025 it filed a comprehensive under Section 173(2) before the —the only court statutorily notified to try CBI‑investigated offences.
Who stands accused
The CBI names eight public servants: - Kishan Chand , then Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kalagarh Tiger Reserve Division - Brij Bihari Sharma , then Forest Range Officer, Sonanadi & Pakhro Range - Rahul , the then Director of the Corbett Tiger Reserve - Akhilesh Tiwari , then Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kalagarh - Mathura Singh Mavdi , Deputy Ranger, Pakhro Range - Surendra Singh , Forester, Pakhro Range - Sandeep Arya , Forest Guard, Sonanadi Range - Rajesh Rawat , Wireless Operator (daily‑wager), Pakhro Range
The offences are spread across the , the , the , the , and the .
Why the CBI moved court
While the CBI had already concluded its probe and placed its before the , two miscellaneous criminal cases— State of Uttarakhand v. Brij Bihari Sharma (Misc. Criminal Case No. 01/2023) and State of Uttarakhand v. Kishan Chand (Misc. Criminal Case No. 22/2023)—continued to hang fire before the . The CBI argued that this duality would engender and . Its counsel, Mr. Piyush Garg, submitted that the transfer application was “formal in nature” because the had already been filed in Dehradun, and that only the designated CBI court possessed the authority to try the case.
The court’s reasoning
Justice Siddhartha Sah accepted the submission without any opposition from the State’s Additional Government Advocate or the private respondents’ counsel. The court underlined that the , “alone has jurisdiction to try cases investigated by the CBI.” Consequently, allowing the Haldwani proceedings to continue would directly clash with that . The judgment states:
“It is not disputed that the has already been filed before the Court of the learned , which is the having jurisdiction to try cases investigated by the CBI. Consequently, the continuation of … the cases … before the Court of the learned , would not be in consonance with the jurisdiction vested in the CBI Court at Dehradun.”
Key observations from the bench
- Jurisdictional clarity : The court reiterated that once the CBI takes over an investigation, the designated special CBI court is the only forum for trial.
- No factual dispute : Neither the State nor the private respondents contested the CBI’s assertion that the had been filed in Dehradun.
- Formal but necessary transfer : Though termed “formal,” the transfer was essential to eliminate and secure a .
What the order means
With the transfer application allowed, Misc. Criminal Cases No. 01/2023 and No. 22/2023 now stand transferred to the , for disposal in accordance with law. The decision reinforces the principle that by the CBI must not be fragmented across multiple courts, preventing inconsistent findings and administrative chaos. For the accused—several of whom held senior positions in one of India’s most iconic tiger reserves—the road ahead leads to a single, specialised courtroom in Dehradun.
