Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court had power under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to transfer a case from one judge of the Special Court to another judge of the same Special Court.
Analysis: The Special Court under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 was held not to be a criminal court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The statutory scheme showed that the Special Court was a special forum constituted by the Act, manned by sitting High Court judges, deemed to be a Court of Session only for the limited purposes stated in the Act, and not subject to the High Court's administrative control. Judicial superintendence under Articles 226 and 227 did not amount to the kind of subordination required for section 407. The Court also noted that there was only one Special Court, so the relief sought was in substance a transfer from one judge of that court to another, for which no such transfer power was shown.
Conclusion: Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not apply, and the High Court had no power to transfer the matter from one judge of the Special Court to another. The impugned orders were not interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi: A special court constituted under a special statute is not a court subordinate to the High Court for section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 unless the statute confers such subordination or a corresponding transfer power; judicial superintendence alone is insufficient.