Supreme Court Transfers Criminal Case for Convenience of Parties and Witnesses. Transfer of case to Thane justified due to majority of witnesses being from Maharashtra and convenience of accused.

  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, a husband and wife, sought the transfer of Criminal Case No. 45 of 2008 from the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, New Delhi to the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Thane, Maharashtra, citing convenience for themselves and the majority of witnesses. The husband, an Assistant Commissioner in Central Excise, and the wife, a Chartered Accountant, faced prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on allegations of disproportionate assets amassed during the husband's tenure in New Delhi. The charge-sheet included 92 witnesses, with 88 from Maharashtra, making travel to Delhi burdensome. The petitioners argued that their professional and personal commitments made attending court in Delhi inconvenient. The CBI opposed the transfer, asserting that the case was appropriately filed in Delhi due to the husband's posting during the relevant period. The court noted that the convenience of the parties and witnesses was a significant factor in determining the transfer, referencing previous judgments that highlighted the need for a fair trial. Ultimately, the court found that the trial in Delhi would likely prolong proceedings and hinder justice, thus allowing the transfer to Thane for expeditious resolution. The court ordered the case record to be transferred immediately to the Thane court for prompt handling.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Criminal Cases - Convenience of Parties - Section 406 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court emphasized the importance of convenience for both the accused and witnesses in transfer petitions, holding that the trial in Delhi would be inconvenient given that most witnesses were from Maharashtra. The court allowed the transfer to ensure a fair trial and expedite proceedings (Paras 1-13).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the transfer of Criminal Case No. 45 of 2008 from Delhi to Thane is warranted for the convenience of the parties and witnesses.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of Criminal Case No. 45 of 2008 from the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini, New Delhi to the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Court of Sessions at Thane, Maharashtra, directing the record to be transferred immediately for expeditious disposal.

Law Points

  • Transfer of cases
  • convenience of parties
  • fair trial
  • Section 406 Cr.P.C.
  • expeditious disposal
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (SC) (05) 22

Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 17 of 2012

2012-05-10

T.S. Thakur, Gyan Sudha Misra

H.P. Rawal

Mrudul M. Damle & Anr.

C.B.I. New Delhi

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Transfer petition under Section 406 Cr.P.C.

Remedy Sought

Transfer of Criminal Case No. 45 of 2008 to Thane for convenience.

Filing Reason

Inconvenience of attending court in Delhi due to majority of witnesses being from Maharashtra.

Issues

Convenience of parties and witnesses in transfer petitions Fairness of trial in relation to location of proceedings

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued for transfer due to inconvenience and majority of witnesses being from Maharashtra. Respondent argued against transfer citing the appropriateness of the case being in Delhi.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the importance of convenience for both the accused and witnesses in transfer petitions, holding that the trial in Delhi would be inconvenient given that most witnesses were from Maharashtra.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioners pray for transfer of Criminal Case No. 45 of 2008 pending in the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini Courts, New Delhi to the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Court of Sessions at Thane, Maharashtra. The prosecution case, it appears, is that the petitioner No.2-Milind Purushottam Damle while posted as Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax at New Delhi, has amassed assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income. The court emphasized the importance of fairness of a trial and observed that while no universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition, convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is a relevant consideration.

Procedural History

The petition was filed under Section 406 Cr.P.C. for the transfer of the case from Delhi to Thane. The case was initially filed before the Special Judge, CBI cases, Patiala House, New Delhi and subsequently transferred to the Court of Special Judge, CBI cases, Rohini, New Delhi.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 406
  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 13(1)(e), 13(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Transfer of Matrimonial Case from Puttur to Madikeri for Convenience of Wife and Child. Wife's Divorce Petition at Final Arguments, Husband's Restitution Case Transferred for Joint Trial Under Section 24 CPC.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Husband's Revision Against Enhanced Maintenance Under Section 127 Cr.P.C. — Enhancement Set Aside Due to Lack of Material Change in Circumstances. The court held that Section 127 Cr.P.C. requires proof of material cha...