Bombay High Court Dismisses Accused's Challenge to Transfer of CBI Trials from Kolhapur to Pune Under BNSS Section 205. Government Resolutions Conferring Jurisdiction on Special Court at Pune Over Kolhapur Cases Not Repugnant to Any Judicial Direction and in Public Interest.

Case Note & Summary

Background: The case concerned writ petitions filed by two accused persons in CBI cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, challenging Government Resolutions dated 16.04.2025 and 25.04.2025 issued by the State of Maharashtra. The resolutions transferred the trial of CBI cases from Kolhapur to a newly constituted Special Court at Pune. Facts: The petitioners were facing trial before the learned Special Judge at Kolhapur in cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI, finding the Kolhapur court overburdened and seeking expeditious disposal of cases, requested the State Government to establish a Special Court at Pune exclusively for CBI cases. The State Government consulted the Administrative Committee of the Bombay High Court, which recommended enhancing the jurisdiction of the CBI Court at Pune. Consequently, the State issued the impugned Government Resolutions, conferring jurisdiction on the Special Court at Pune over CBI cases from the judicial districts of Pune, Ahmednagar, Satara, Solapur, Sangli, Nashik, and Kolhapur. The petitioners contended that this transfer was illegal and caused them hardship. Legal Issues: The primary issue was whether the State Government had the legal power under Section 205 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to transfer a class of cases from one district to another sessions division. The petitioners argued that only the High Court could transfer cases under Section 447 BNSS (Section 407 CrPC). They also contended that the resolutions were issued at the behest of the CBI, a litigant, and that the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act were not serious enough to warrant such a transfer. The respondents maintained that Section 205 BNSS explicitly empowers the State Government to direct such transfers, that the High Court's Administrative Committee had recommended the transfer, and that corruption offences are serious and require expeditious trial in public interest. Arguments: The petitioners submitted that the power of transfer was vested exclusively in the High Court and that the impugned resolutions overrode substantive provisions of the BNSS/CrPC. They relied on Supreme Court decisions in Swaati Nirkhi & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Mamman Khan vs. State of Haryana to argue that courts should consider hardships to litigants and procedural disadvantages. The CBI and the State argued that the State Government acted within its statutory power under Section 205 BNSS, that the Administrative Committee of the High Court had recommended the measure, that the transfer was a policy decision to address overburdened courts, and that the petitioners failed to show any repugnancy with prior High Court or Supreme Court directions. Court's Analysis: The Court examined the scheme of the BNSS, particularly Sections 197, 198, and 205. Section 205, with a non-obstante clause, empowers the State Government to direct that any case or class of cases committed for trial in any district may be tried in any sessions division, provided such direction is not repugnant to any previous direction of the High Court or Supreme Court. The Court noted that the impugned Government Resolutions contained a recital that the proposal was made by the Administrative Committee of the Bombay High Court. The petitioners did not point to any existing direction of the High Court or Supreme Court that would be repugnant to the transfer. The Court rejected the argument that the transfer was improper because it was initiated by the CBI, noting that there was due application of mind by the State Government and recommendation by the High Court's Administrative Committee. The Court further rejected the contention that offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act are not serious, emphasizing that corruption erodes the social and economic fabric and that speedy trial is essential. The Court held that the State Government had lawfully exercised its power under Section 205 BNSS. Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed. The Court upheld the Government Resolutions dated 16.04.2025 and 25.04.2025 as valid and within the competence of the State Government. The transfer of CBI cases from Kolhapur to the Special Court at Pune was confirmed.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Both writ petitions dismissed. The Government Resolutions dated 16.04.2025 and 25.04.2025 upheld. The transfer of CBI cases from Kolhapur to the Special Court at Pune was held valid under Section 205 BNSS.

Law Points