TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Rejects Transfer Petitions, Upholds Judiciary's Impartiality</h1> <h3>Umesh Kumar Sharma Versus State of Uttarakhand and Ors.</h3> Umesh Kumar Sharma Versus State of Uttarakhand and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Transfer of criminal cases under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Apprehension of threat to life and bias in conducting defense.3. Allegations of malicious prosecution.4. Credibility of the courts in Uttarakhand.5. Convenience of parties involved in the trial.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Transfer of criminal cases under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:The petitions were filed under Section 406 of the CrPC, seeking the transfer of three criminal cases from Dehradun to Delhi or other courts outside Uttarakhand. The petitioner argued that his life was in danger and he would be prejudiced in conducting his defense in Dehradun due to his work as an investigative journalist against the ruling dispensation in Uttarakhand.2. Apprehension of threat to life and bias in conducting defense:The petitioner claimed that his investigative journalism, including sting operations against high-profile individuals in Uttarakhand, led to vindictive prosecution. He expressed a genuine fear that justice would not be served if the trials continued in Uttarakhand. However, the State's counsel argued that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any substantial prejudice or threat, asserting that the petitions were filed to delay proceedings. The court noted that the petitioner had filed multiple PILs in Uttarakhand in 2020, indicating he was conducting his affairs without impediment.3. Allegations of malicious prosecution:The petitioner’s counsel argued that the public prosecutor's proactive steps to arrest the petitioner indicated malicious prosecution. However, the court found this argument unconvincing, noting that the charge sheet for FIR No. 100/2018 had already been filed, and the trial was scheduled in Dehradun. The court emphasized that the role of the State would now be limited to proving the prosecution case before the trial court.4. Credibility of the courts in Uttarakhand:The State's counsel contended that transferring the cases would undermine the credibility of Uttarakhand’s courts. The court agreed, stating that transfer power under Section 406 should be invoked sparingly and only when fair justice is in peril. The court cited precedents emphasizing that mere allegations of apprehension are insufficient for transfer and that the judiciary operates independently of executive influence.5. Convenience of parties involved in the trial:The court considered the convenience of all parties, including the complainant, witnesses, prosecution, and the larger interest of society. The petitioner failed to make a credible case for transfer, as the majority of witnesses resided in Uttarakhand. The court also highlighted that two of the cases were property and will-related matters, pending for over a decade, and not directly related to the petitioner’s journalistic activities.Conclusion:The court dismissed the transfer petitions, stating that the petitioner did not demonstrate a credible threat or bias that would warrant transferring the cases. The court emphasized that the judiciary in Uttarakhand is capable of delivering impartial justice and that the petitioner’s apprehensions were based on conjectures rather than substantial evidence. The observations made in the judgment were specific to the petitions and should not influence other proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
