Reasonable apprehension of unfair trial can justify transfer outside the State, with forum chosen for practical convenience.

A criminal case may be transferred under Section 406 CrPC where surrounding circumstances create a reasonable apprehension that the accused will not receive a fair and impartial trial, even without any allegation against the district judiciary itself. Here, sustained interference by the prosecuting machinery and State authorities, including pressure on defence counsel, action against associated lawyers, freezing of the Mutt's accounts, and detention orders against co-accused, was treated as sufficient to justify transfer outside Tamil Nadu. Pondicherry was selected as the transferee forum because it offered language convenience for witnesses, minimal translation difficulty, and practical proximity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the circumstances disclosed a reasonable apprehension that the accused would not receive a fair and impartial trial within the State of Tamil Nadu so as to justify transfer of the sessions case under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) If transfer was warranted, whether the case should be sent to Pondicherry.

Issue (i): Whether the circumstances disclosed a reasonable apprehension that the accused would not receive a fair and impartial trial within the State of Tamil Nadu so as to justify transfer of the sessions case under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The material on record showed sustained interference by the prosecuting machinery and State authorities that went beyond ordinary investigation. The action included conduct alleged to have demoralized defence counsel, criminal proceedings and pressure against lawyers associated with the defence, freezing of the Mutt's bank accounts in a manner that paralysed its activities, detention orders against co-accused soon after bail was granted, and prosecution of persons who expressed dissent. These circumstances were held sufficient to create a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the petitioner and co-accused that they would not get justice if the trial remained within the State. The Court clarified that no reflection was cast on the district judiciary; the concern was with the prosecuting agency and State machinery.

Conclusion: The existence of a reasonable apprehension of denial of justice within Tamil Nadu was established, and transfer outside the State was warranted in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): If transfer was warranted, whether the case should be sent to Pondicherry.

Analysis: The Court considered language convenience for witnesses, the practical difficulty of translation, and the comparative proximity of the forum. Pondicherry was found suitable because the witnesses would generally depose in Tamil, the presiding judge would be familiar with that language, and the location was close enough to avoid substantial inconvenience to witnesses and the prosecution.

Conclusion: The case was directed to be transferred to the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.

Final Conclusion: The criminal trial was ordered to be transferred outside Tamil Nadu on account of a reasonable apprehension of unfair trial, and Pondicherry was selected as the transferee forum for trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal case may be transferred under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the surrounding circumstances create a reasonable apprehension of denial of a fair trial, even without imputing bias to the trial judiciary, and the transferee forum may be chosen to minimize practical hardship and preserve trial fairness.

---