Just a moment...
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 criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat should be transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh on the ground of inconvenience to the accused under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Section 407 of the Code empowers the High Court to transfer a case only where transfer is necessary for fair and impartial trial, where a question of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, where transfer is required by the Code, or where transfer promotes the general convenience of parties or witnesses or the ends of justice. The only ground pressed was inconvenience in travelling from the place of residence to Jorhat. No allegation of bias, unfair trial, legal difficulty, or other exceptional circumstance was shown. The distance by itself was not treated as sufficient, especially when no physical inability to attend trial was established and transport facilities were available. The convenience of parties cannot override the jurisdictional venue fixed by law.
Conclusion: The request for transfer on the ground of inconvenience was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The criminal proceeding was held not transferable on the facts shown, and the transfer petition failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere inconvenience in attending trial, without exceptional grounds affecting fairness or justice, is insufficient to justify transfer under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.