Criminal case transfer between competent courts upheld where no exclusive statutory jurisdiction existed and appeal rights remained intact.

Where no statute confers exclusive jurisdiction on a particular criminal forum, transfer of a Foreign Exchange Regulation Act prosecution to another competent court is not unlawful merely because the forum changes. The change of court does not extinguish the accused's substantive right of appeal, since that right remains available before the appropriate appellate court, and revision is not a vested entitlement because revisional jurisdiction is discretionary. The High Court may support transfer through its administrative and criminal procedural powers where administrative exigency, common accused, witnesses, and evidence justify it. On that basis, the transfer was treated as valid and no legally cognisable prejudice was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the transfer of prosecutions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 from the Magistrate's court to the Special Judge was unlawful for want of jurisdiction, whether such transfer impermissibly curtailed the accused's appellate or revisional remedies, and whether the High Court could authorise the transfer in exercise of its administrative power.

Analysis: Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 made the offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, while Section 62 of that Act rendered such offences non-cognizable. On that scheme, the Magistrate did not enjoy an exclusive statutory jurisdiction comparable to the special forum considered in the earlier constitutional precedent dealing with a court mandated by statute alone. The governing principle was that where no exclusive forum is conferred by statute, a transfer does not offend the law merely because the case is placed before another competent court. The Court further held that the accused did not lose any substantive right of appeal by the change of forum, because the right remained intact and only the appellate court changed. It also reaffirmed that a revisional power is discretionary and does not create a vested right in a litigant. The High Court's administrative power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with its power under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could validly support the transfer where administrative exigency and commonality of accused, witnesses, and evidence justified it.

Conclusion: The transfer notification was valid, no prejudice of a legally cognisable kind was shown, and the challenge to the transfer failed.

Concurring Opinion: The separate opinion agreed with dismissal and added that the earlier precedent on exclusive special-court jurisdiction had limited application. It held that the High Court's plenary administrative power could be exercised for transfer, that the forum change did not extinguish appeal or revision, and that the contrary Delhi High Court view should not be followed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of exclusive statutory jurisdiction in a particular court, a criminal case may be transferred to another competent court through the High Court's administrative or judicial powers, and a mere change of forum does not destroy the accused's substantive right of appeal or create a vested right to revision before a particular court.

---