Supreme Court Declines Transfer of Trial in Corruption Case Due to Lack of Substantial Evidence. Apprehension of Bias Not Established as Grounds for Transfer Under Section 406 of Cr.P.C.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court addressed the request by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to transfer the trial of the Ghaziabad P.F. Scam from the Special Judge, CBI at Ghaziabad to a court in Delhi. The case involved serious allegations against late Ashutosh Asthana and 82 others, including former District Judges and court employees, for fraudulent withdrawals from the District Treasury. The CBI argued that the trial should be moved due to potential bias stemming from the close associations between the accused and the local judiciary, which could undermine public confidence in the judicial process. The court considered the CBI's concerns but ultimately found that the apprehension of bias was not substantiated by evidence. It emphasized that a fair trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and that the mere presence of former colleagues among the accused does not automatically imply bias. The court also noted that the trial court was overburdened but stated that this was not a sufficient reason for transfer. The CBI's request for transfer was declined, and the trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously with the case.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Trial - Grounds for Transfer - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 406 - The CBI sought transfer of trial due to concerns of bias and public confidence in the judiciary, citing the involvement of former judges as accused. The court held that mere apprehension without substantial evidence does not warrant transfer, emphasizing the need for a fair trial (Paras 25-26).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial arising out of the chargesheet filed by the CBI deserves to be transferred from the Court of Special Judge, CBI at Ghaziabad to another court, preferably at Delhi.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court declined the CBI's request for transfer of the trial from Ghaziabad to Delhi, stating that the apprehension of bias was not substantiated by evidence. The court emphasized the importance of a fair trial and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously with the case.

Law Points

  • Transfer of trial
  • fair trial
  • judicial impartiality
  • prosecuting agency's role
  • reasonable apprehension of bias
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (SC) (11) 21

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12981 of 2008

2010-11-19

D.K. Jain, V.S. Sirpurkar, G.S. Singhvi

G.E. Vahanvati, Prashant Bhushan, Vishwajit Singh

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

Nature of Litigation

Transfer of trial application in a corruption case.

Remedy Sought

CBI sought transfer of trial to Delhi.

Filing Reason

Concerns of bias and public confidence in the judiciary.

Previous Decisions

Trial was initially conducted in Ghaziabad; CBI's request for transfer was made due to alleged bias.

Issues

Whether the trial should be transferred from Ghaziabad to Delhi. Whether the CBI has the locus standi to request the transfer.

Submissions/Arguments

CBI argued for transfer due to potential bias and public confidence. Accused objected, claiming inconvenience and lack of evidence for bias.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that transfer of trial under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. requires substantial evidence of bias or reasonable apprehension thereof, which was not established in this case.

Judgment Excerpts

The apprehension entertained by the CBI that the trial of the case at Ghaziabad may not be fair, resulting in miscarriage of justice, is misplaced and cannot be accepted. A true and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Procedural History

The CBI filed an affidavit requesting transfer of trial; the Supreme Court issued notice to the accused; affidavits were filed in response; the court heard arguments from both sides before making its decision.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B
  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Sections 8, 9, 13(2), 13(1)(d), 14
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 406
  • Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946: Section 6
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Plaint Rejection Application in Bar Association Election Dispute. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Application Rejected as Plaint Disclosed Cause of Action and Was Not Barred by Law.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Petition Challenging NOC Requirement for College Affiliation. Condition in Statute SC-1 of Goa University Act, 1984 is Valid and Not Ultra Vires.