High Court transfer jurisdiction under criminal procedure can be invoked directly where convenience of parties and witnesses supports transfer.

Where a Sessions Judge has no power to transfer a case between courts of equal jurisdiction, the High Court may still entertain a transfer application under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without first approaching the Sessions Judge. The note also states that transfer may be ordered on general convenience of the parties and witnesses, particularly where the prosecution has numerous witnesses, including many from outside the State, and the accused has no local connection. Practical arrangements for transport and legal aid may be directed to reduce hardship.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for transfer of a Sessions case made over to an Additional Sessions Judge was maintainable before the High Court without first moving the Sessions Judge. (ii) Whether the case should be transferred on the ground of general convenience of the parties and witnesses.

Issue (i): Whether an application for transfer of a Sessions case made over to an Additional Sessions Judge was maintainable before the High Court without first moving the Sessions Judge.

Analysis: The transfer power under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is confined to transfers by a Sessions Judge between criminal courts subordinate to him. An Additional Sessions Court and a Sessions Court are courts of equal jurisdiction, and a Sessions Judge has no power to transfer a case from an Additional Sessions Court to a Sessions Court; he can only recall a case made over to an Additional Sessions Judge under Section 409. The proviso to Section 407(2) applies only where the Sessions Judge has power to order transfer. Where no such power exists, failure to approach the Sessions Judge does not bar the High Court from entertaining the application under Section 407.

Conclusion: The transfer application was maintainable before the High Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the case should be transferred on the ground of general convenience of the parties and witnesses.

Analysis: The prosecution had a large number of witnesses, including many from outside the State, and the expected duration of trial made accommodation and convenience relevant considerations. The accused also did not belong to Mavelikkara. On these facts, transfer to the Sessions Court at Alleppey would tend to the general convenience of the parties and witnesses. The court also addressed the practical difficulties raised by the accused by directing transport arrangements and noting that legal representation could be provided at State cost if necessary.

Conclusion: The case was liable to be transferred to the Sessions Court, Alleppey.

Final Conclusion: The transfer request was allowed, and the Sessions case was moved from the Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara to the Sessions Court, Alleppey.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Sessions Judge lacks power to transfer a case between courts of equal jurisdiction, the High Court may entertain a transfer application under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and a transfer may be ordered when it serves the general convenience of the parties and witnesses.

---