Case Note & Summary
The judgment arose from two writ petitions filed by accused persons in cases being investigated and prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners, whose trials were pending before the Special Judge at Kolhapur, challenged Government Resolutions dated 16th April 2025 and 25th April 2025, issued by the State of Maharashtra, which transferred their cases and similar CBI matters from Kolhapur to a newly constituted Special Court at Pune. The impugned resolutions were issued following a proposal from the CBI and after the Administrative Committee of the Bombay High Court recommended the enhancement of jurisdiction for the CBI Special Court at Pune to cover several districts including Kolhapur. The petitioners contended that the State Government lacked the power to transfer cases, arguing that only the High Court could do so under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (or Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). They also alleged that the transfer was at the behest of a litigant (CBI) and would cause them hardship and financial burden. The CBI and the State defended the resolutions, asserting that Section 205 of the BNSS expressly empowers the State Government to direct any case or class of cases to be tried in any sessions division, and that the transfer was in public interest to ensure expeditious trial of corruption cases. The Court examined the scheme of the BNSS, particularly Sections 197, 198, and 205, and observed that Section 205 begins with a non-obstante clause and authorises the State Government to issue such directions, subject only to the proviso that the direction must not be repugnant to any previous direction of the High Court or Supreme Court. The Court found that the Administrative Committee of the High Court had recommended the transfer, thereby negating any claim of repugnancy. It also underscored the seriousness of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the need for speedy trial, holding that the argument that such offences are not serious was preposterous. The Court rejected the contention that the transfer was vitiated because the CBI requested it, noting that the State had applied its mind and followed the statutory procedure. Consequently, both writ petitions were dismissed, and the Government Resolutions were upheld, confirming the transfer of the cases to Pune.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction and Transfer of Cases - State Government’s Power to Direct Trial in Different Sessions Division - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 205 - The petitioners contended that only the High Court could transfer cases under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 447 of the BNSS. The Court held that Section 205 BNSS begins with a non-obstante clause and specifically 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, and such power was validly exercised. (Paras 15-16, 20-21) B) Administrative Law - Exercise of Power at Instance of Litigant - Validity of Government Resolution - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 205; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The petitioners argued that the transfer was improper because it was initiated at the request of the CBI, a litigant. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the Administrative Committee of the High Court had recommended the enhancement of jurisdiction and that the State Government had applied its mind to the request, thereby satisfying the statutory requirements. (Paras 10, 22) C) Anti-Corruption Law - Trial of Offences under Prevention of Corruption Act - Need for Expeditious Trial - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 3, 4 - The Court observed that corruption by public servants erodes the social and economic fabric of the country and that the PC Act mandates trial by special judges only. The transfer to a dedicated Special Court at Pune was held justified to avoid delays and ensure speedy trial. (Paras 17-19, 21, 23) D) Constitutional Law - Ultra Vires Challenge - Repugnancy to Previous Directions - Constitution of India; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 205 proviso - The petitioners claimed the Government Resolutions were ultra vires the Constitution. The Court held that the proviso to Section 205 requires the direction not be repugnant to any previous direction of the High Court or Supreme Court, and since the Administrative Committee had actually recommended the transfer and no repugnant direction was shown, the challenge failed. (Paras 20-21) E) Criminal Procedure - Hardship to Accused - Balancing of Convenience - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 205 - The petitioners cited hardship and financial burden. The Court implicitly rejected this argument, emphasizing that the public interest in expeditious trial of serious corruption cases and the valid exercise of statutory power after due consultation override individual inconvenience. (Paras 7, 23)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government had the power under Section 205 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to issue Government Resolutions transferring CBI cases from Kolhapur to Pune, and whether such transfer was illegal or ultra vires the Constitution of India
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The Court upheld the impugned Government Resolutions dated 16.04.2025 and 25.04.2025, holding that the State Government validly exercised its power under Section 205 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to transfer CBI cases to the Special Court at Pune. The Court found no repugnancy with any prior direction of the High Court or Supreme Court, and rejected the contentions regarding the impropriety of the CBI's request and the alleged hardship.
Law Points
- State Government has power under Section 205 BNSS to direct any case or class of cases committed for trial in any district to be tried in any sessions division
- subject to the proviso of non-repugnancy to prior directions of High Court or Supreme Court
- transfer of CBI cases under Prevention of Corruption Act to a dedicated Special Court for expeditious trial is valid when Administrative Committee of High Court recommends it
- corruption offences are serious and warrant speedy trial
- request by CBI as a litigant does not vitiate exercise of power if State Government applies its mind and follows due process
