Case Note & Summary
The case arose from criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner and three co-accused before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi. The complainant, Mool Raj Hukam Chand, alleged that the petitioner and others had committed offences under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code in connection with a land transaction relating to Plot No. 210 in Meenakashi Garden. The complainant claimed that the transaction in June 1959 was a result of cheating, as the plot shown and given in possession did not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and moved an application under Section 253(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for discharge, but no order was made on that application. The complainant then obtained an order from the Magistrate directing the petitioner to be present in court on 29 May 1962 for identification by witnesses, despite the Magistrate having earlier dispensed with her personal appearance. The petitioner apprehended that this would lead to false identification, and she filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court (Transfer Petition No. 8 of 1962). The Supreme Court adjourned that petition to allow the petitioner to approach the Sessions Judge, and the Sessions Judge transferred the case from Mr. Grover to Mr. S. N. Chaturvedi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The new Magistrate, however, declined to modify the order for personal appearance. The petitioner then filed the present Transfer Petition No. 15 of 1963, seeking transfer of the case to any other court of competent jurisdiction in a neighbouring State. Her grounds included that the complaint was frivolous and based on a civil dispute twisted into a criminal case, and that co-accused Dalip Singh wielded influence through the Chief Minister of Punjab. After the petition was admitted and interim stay granted, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate himself filed an affidavit on behalf of the Delhi Administration opposing the transfer. In that affidavit, the Magistrate argued that an indemnity clause in the sale deed would not absolve the petitioner from criminal liability, thereby adopting the argument which the complainant might urge at trial. The Supreme Court held that the action of the Magistrate in making an affidavit and opposing the transfer application was wholly improper. It observed that in criminal trials, a Magistrate must remain fearless, impartial and objective. By filing the affidavit on behalf of the Administration and strongly opposing the transfer, the Magistrate had entered the arena and compromised the essential attributes of a fair and impartial criminal trial. The Court distinguished the situation where a report is called for from a Magistrate regarding allegations made against him; but here the Magistrate voluntarily opposed the transfer. Without considering the merits of the petitioner's contentions, the Court held that it was expedient in the ends of justice to transfer the case to some other court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the transfer petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Criminal Case - Impartiality of Magistrate - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - The trying Magistrate filed an affidavit on behalf of Delhi Administration opposing the accused's transfer petition, thereby entering the arena and adopting arguments likely to be urged by the complainant. Held that such action was wholly improper and put essential attributes of fair and impartial criminal trial in jeopardy; expedient in the ends of justice to transfer the case to another court of competent jurisdiction (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a trying Magistrate can file an affidavit opposing an accused's application for transfer of the pending criminal case; whether it is expedient in the interests of justice to transfer the case when the Magistrate has entered the arena by filing such an affidavit.
Final Decision
Transfer petition allowed. The criminal case pending in the Court of S.N. Chaturvedi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi was directed to be transferred to some other court of competent jurisdiction in a neighbouring State. The action of the Magistrate in making an affidavit opposing the transfer was held to be wholly improper.
Law Points
- Magistrate must remain fearless
- impartial and objective
- filing affidavit by trying magistrate opposing transfer petition puts fair trial in jeopardy
- expedient in ends of justice to transfer case
- Section 420 IPC cheating
- Section 120B IPC criminal conspiracy
- Section 253(2) CrPC discharge
Case Details
Transfer Petition No. 15 of 1963
B.C. Misra for petitioner; R.N. Sachthey for respondent No. 5
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal proceedings under Section 420 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code pending before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi; transfer petition before Supreme Court seeking transfer of case to another court in neighbouring State.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner/accused sought transfer of criminal case pending against her and three co-accused from Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi to any other court of competent jurisdiction in a neighbouring State.
Filing Reason
Petitioner apprehended prejudice because Magistrate directed her personal appearance for identification by complainant's witnesses; after transfer to new Magistrate, the order was maintained; and after petition was filed, the trying Magistrate himself filed a counter-affidavit opposing transfer, thereby entering arena and compromising impartiality.
Previous Decisions
Earlier transfer petition (No. 8 of 1962) was adjourned by Supreme Court to enable petitioner to apply to Sessions Judge; Sessions Judge transferred case from Magistrate Mr. Grover to Mr. S.N. Chaturvedi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate; subsequent petition before Supreme Court because new Magistrate also insisted on personal appearance and then filed counter-affidavit.
Issues
Whether a trying Magistrate can file an affidavit opposing an accused's application for transfer of the pending criminal case.
Whether in the interests of justice the case should be transferred given the Magistrate's conduct.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued complaint was frivolous and based on a civil dispute twisted into a criminal case to harass her; personal appearance order would enable complainant's witnesses to falsely identify her; co-accused Dalip Singh wielded influence through Chief Minister of Punjab; case was previously transferred from earlier Magistrate because of same personal appearance order.
Delhi Administration through Magistrate's counter-affidavit opposed transfer, stating indemnity clause in sale deed did not absolve criminal liability, no justifiable apprehension existed, and petition should be dismissed.
Supreme Court observed that the Magistrate's affidavit had adopted the argument which the complainant would probably urge at trial, thereby entering the arena and compromising impartiality.
Ratio Decidendi
A trying Magistrate must remain fearless, impartial and objective. Filing an affidavit on behalf of the Administration opposing an accused's transfer petition constitutes entering the arena and violates the essential attributes of a fair and impartial criminal trial. In such circumstances, it is expedient in the ends of justice to transfer the case to another court of competent jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
In criminal trials, particularly, it was of utmost importance that the Magistrate who tried the case must remain fearless, impartial and objective; and if a Magistrate chose to make an affidavit challenging the application made by an accused person whose case was pending in his court, made the said affidavit on behalf of the Administration, and in the affidavit put a strong plea opposing the transfer, all essential attributes of a fair and impartial criminal trial were immediately put in jeopardy.
Even without considering the merits of the contentions raised by the petition or, it was expedient in the ends of Justice that the case should be transfered to some other court of competent jurisdiction.
Procedural History
Complaint filed by Mool Raj Hukam Chand against petitioner and three others under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC in Court of Magistrate 1st Class Delhi. Petitioner appeared and filed application under Section 253(2) CrPC for discharge; no order was made. Complainant obtained order directing petitioner to be present in court on 29 May 1962 for identification. Petitioner filed Transfer Petition No. 8 of 1962 in Supreme Court; Supreme Court adjourned matter to enable petitioner to apply to Sessions Judge and continued interim stay. Petitioner moved Sessions Judge Delhi; case transferred to Court of S.N. Chaturvedi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi. Magistrate rejected arguments against personal appearance order. Petitioner filed present Transfer Petition No. 15 of 1963 in Supreme Court. After admission and interim stay, Magistrate Chaturvedi filed counter-affidavit on behalf of Delhi Administration opposing transfer. Supreme Court held affidavit improper and transferred the case to another court of competent jurisdiction.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 420, Section 120B
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: Section 253(2)
