TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction under section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to transfer a case pending before a Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. (ii) Whether the petitioner made out a case for transfer on the ground of a reasonable apprehension that justice would not be done in the State of Rajasthan.
Issue (i): Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction under section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to transfer a case pending before a Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952.
Analysis: Section 527 empowered transfer of a criminal case from one criminal court subordinate to one High Court to another criminal court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court when expedient for the ends of justice. The special statute required offences under section 6 to be tried by a Special Judge, and section 8 preserved the application of the Code so far as not inconsistent with the Act. The territorial specification in section 7(2) only identified which Special Judge within the State would ordinarily try the case; it did not create an absolute bar to transfer. A transfer order could validly invest another Special Judge with jurisdiction, and no inconsistency arose between the two enactments.
Conclusion: The Court held that jurisdiction under section 527 existed and could extend to transfer from one Special Judge to another Special Judge subordinate to a different High Court.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner made out a case for transfer on the ground of a reasonable apprehension that justice would not be done in the State of Rajasthan.
Analysis: A transfer is justified only where the apprehension of denial of justice is reasonable on the facts. Mere hostility or a general feeling of disadvantage is insufficient unless there is material showing direct or indirect interference with the investigation or trial. The allegations related largely to past official differences and personal hostility, but they did not show any interference with the pending trial before the Special Judge or any likelihood of such interference.
Conclusion: The Court held that the petitioner's apprehension was not reasonable and that no ground for transfer was established.
Final Conclusion: The transfer petition failed both on jurisdictional objection and on merits, and the criminal case was left to proceed before the Special Judge, Bharatpur.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applies to cases before Special Judges under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 because the territorial designation of the Special Judge is not inconsistent with transfer jurisdiction, and transfer will be ordered only on a reasonable and objective apprehension that justice will not be done.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
