1965 (11) TMI 157 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds jurisdiction to transfer cases, dismisses petition due to lack of evidence for fair trial.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for transfer, affirming its jurisdiction under Section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer cases, ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to transfer a case under Section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Alleged apprehension of not receiving a fair trial in the State of Rajasthan.3. Contempt of Court by the State Government and its officials.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to Transfer a Case under Section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The petitioner sought the transfer of a criminal case from the Special Judge, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, to another criminal court outside Rajasthan, invoking Section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State Government opposed this, arguing that the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, mandates that cases assigned to a special judge by the State cannot be transferred. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, particularly Sections 6, 7, and 8, and concluded that Section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for such transfers. The court emphasized that the transfer to another special judge does not contravene the Act, as the territorial jurisdiction specified in Section 7(2) must yield to the broader transfer powers under Section 527. This interpretation aligns with the precedent set in Ramchandra Prasad v. State of Bihar, where a similar transfer was upheld.2. Alleged Apprehension of Not Receiving a Fair Trial in the State of Rajasthan:The petitioner claimed that due to the hostility and influence of certain high-ranking officials and the former Home Minister of Rajasthan, he would not receive a fair trial. The court reiterated the principle that a case should be transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension of injustice. However, the court found that the petitioner's apprehensions were based on past events and personal grievances rather than any direct or indirect interference with the ongoing trial. The court noted that there was no allegation against the special judge handling the case, and thus, the apprehension was deemed unreasonable. Consequently, the court declined to transfer the case.3. Contempt of Court by the State Government and its Officials:While the petition for transfer was pending, the State Government charged the petitioner with breaching Rule No. 8 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1954, which the petitioner argued was an attempt to exert indirect pressure on him. The court acknowledged that such actions could obstruct the administration of justice. However, the State Government and the concerned official, Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, offered an unconditional apology, which the court accepted. The court emphasized that any such charges should have waited until the termination of the current proceedings to avoid undue pressure on the petitioner. The court thus decided not to pursue the contempt petition further, given the apology and the corrective measures taken by the State Government.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for transfer, holding that:- The Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer cases, including those assigned to special judges under the Criminal Law Amendment Act.- The petitioner's apprehension of not receiving a fair trial in Rajasthan was found to be unreasonable and unsupported by evidence of interference with the trial.- The State Government's actions that led to the contempt petition were acknowledged, but the unconditional apology rendered further action unnecessary.