Just a moment...
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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the transfer of the three criminal cases from Dehradun to another court outside Uttarakhand was warranted on the basis of an apprehension of bias, malicious prosecution, and the convenience of the parties under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Transfer of criminal proceedings is an exceptional power to be used sparingly and only when a credible and well-substantiated apprehension exists that a fair and impartial trial cannot be secured. The apprehension must be reasonable and supported by material, not by conjectures, surmises, or a hyper-sensitive perception. The convenience of the petitioner alone is not decisive; the Court must also consider the convenience of the complainant, the witnesses, the prosecution, and the larger interests of justice. On the facts, the Court found that the charge-sheets had been filed, the matters were to be tried by court-controlled proceedings, and the circumstances did not show that the State judiciary would be unable to act fairly or that the prosecutions were prima facie malicious. Two of the cases were property and will disputes, and the third did not establish a sufficient basis for transferring all the cases outside the State.
Conclusion: The request for transfer was not made out and the transfer petitions were liable to be rejected.