Criminal case transfer under Section 406 CrPC requires credible prejudice; inconvenience and language difficulty alone are insufficient.

Section 406 CrPC transfer jurisdiction is to be used sparingly and only when transfer is expedient for the ends of justice. Mere inconvenience, difficulty with the local language, connected civil proceedings, or an unsupported apprehension of local influence was insufficient to justify shifting the criminal trial from Salem to New Delhi. The availability of a translator or interpreter and the substantial progress already made before the Salem Court also weighed against transfer. On the material presented, no credible basis was shown to doubt a fair and impartial trial at Salem, so the request for transfer failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal case pending before the Salem Court ought to be transferred to New Delhi under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the grounds of convenience, language difficulty, alleged local influence, and overlap with connected civil proceedings.

Analysis: The transfer power under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be exercised sparingly and only when transfer is expedient for the ends of justice. Mere inconvenience to a party, difficulty in understanding the local language, or the existence of connected civil disputes does not by itself justify transfer. The record did not disclose credible material showing that the petitioner would not receive a fair and impartial trial at Salem. Aid of translator or interpreter was available, and the case had already made substantial progress before the Salem Court. The asserted apprehension of prejudice was unsupported and did not meet the threshold required for invoking the extraordinary transfer jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Transfer of the criminal case was not warranted and the request for shifting the proceeding from Salem to New Delhi failed.

---