Fair trial concerns can justify transfer of a criminal case, with courts using statutory powers to secure truth.

A criminal case may be transferred where the surrounding circumstances create a real and substantial apprehension that a fair trial will be compromised, because fairness must extend to the accused, the victim and the community. Witness intimidation, hostile conduct or any atmosphere undermining impartial adjudication can justify shifting the forum. The trial court is also not confined to a passive role; it may use Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 of the Evidence Act to recall witnesses and take steps to ensure that truth emerges. The proceedings were shifted and further directions were issued to protect the fairness, effectiveness and integrity of the trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the criminal trial should be transferred to another State on the ground that the circumstances disclosed a real apprehension that a fair trial would be compromised. (ii) Whether directions were warranted regarding recall of witnesses and appointment of public prosecutor to secure a fair and effective trial.

Issue (i): Whether the criminal trial should be transferred to another State on the ground that the circumstances disclosed a real apprehension that a fair trial would be compromised.

Analysis: Fair trial is the central criterion in considering transfer of a criminal case. The controlling concern is not convenience but whether the situation creates a substantial and compelling threat to public justice, the neutrality of the forum, and the confidence of the parties and society in the administration of justice. The Court emphasised that trial must be fair not only to the accused but also to the victim and the community, and that witness intimidation, hostile conduct, or an atmosphere undermining impartial adjudication may justify transfer.

Conclusion: The case was transferred from Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh to Nagpur, Maharashtra in the interests of a fair trial.

Issue (ii): Whether directions were warranted regarding recall of witnesses and appointment of public prosecutor to secure a fair and effective trial.

Analysis: The Court held that the trial judge is not a passive recorder and may actively use the wide powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to elicit necessary material and ensure that truth emerges. Where the fairness of the proceedings may be affected by the conduct of the prosecution or the turning of witnesses hostile, the court may permit recall of witnesses and take steps to secure a proper prosecutorial function so that the trial is not reduced to a mock exercise.

Conclusion: Directions were issued permitting recall of witnesses and enabling appointment of a public prosecutor from names suggested by the parties, with the State bearing the expenses.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were shifted to another forum and ancillary directions were issued to safeguard fairness, witness examination, and the integrity of the criminal trial process.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal transfer may be ordered where the circumstances create a substantial apprehension that the trial will not be fair or will not be seen to be fair, and the court may use its statutory powers to actively secure the truth and protect the integrity of the trial.

---