Transfer of Cases

https://www.livelaw.in/columns/supreme-court-code-of-criminal-procedure-1908-transfer-petitions-176607

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani; (1979) 4 SCC 167, had bestowed on 'Assurance of a fair trial', the status of the 'first imperative' and 'central criterion' in considering a motion for transfer.

 Nahar Singh Yadav vs. Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 307, which held that no rigid and inflexible rule or test can be laid down to decide whether or not power under Section 406 should be exercised.

R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala; (2000) 7 SCC 129, the Court rejected a prayer for transfer made on the ground that one of the Judges hearing the appeal had previously appeared as an advocate in a commission enquiring into an allegation of misconduct against the petitioner in another matter.

Bhairu Ram vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2010) 7 SCC 799, the Court held that, "mere inconvenience may not be sufficient ground for the exercise of power of transfer but it must be shown that the trial in the chosen forum will result in failure of justice.".

R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala; (2000) 7 SCC 129, the Court rejected a prayer for transfer made on the ground that one of the Judges hearing the appeal had previously appeared as an advocate in a commission enquiring into an allegation of misconduct against the petitioner in another matter.

Some illustrative cases where transfer power was exercised:


In a case of an appeal against conviction on the charge of an attempt to murder the Chief Justice of State, the Petitioner had applied for transfer of the case to some other High Court, on the ground that he will not have fair and impartial hearing of appeal in the State High Court presided over by the Complainant, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the case. (L.S. Raju vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1953 SC 435)

All cases were transferred by the Supreme Court from Manipur to Delhi in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. R. Hopeson Ningshen; (2010) 5 SCC 115, after considering the communal tension between the Meities and the Nagas, real possibility of a physical attack on the accused and risk of intimidation of witnesses.

In R.S. Sodhi Advocate vs. State of U.P. and Ors.; 1994 (Supp) (1) SCC 143, investigation was transferred from the State police to the CBI because of serious allegations made against the police force involved in the encounter resulting in the killing of several persons.

The Supreme Court had directed transfer of the chit fund scam in the states of West Bengal and Orissa from the state police to the CBI keeping in view the sensitivity of the issues involved especially inter-state ramifications of the scam under investigation and the involvement of several influential persons holding high positions of power and having political clout. (Subrata Chattoraj vs. Union of India; (2014) 8 SCC 768)

The investigation into the Moga sex scandal inculpating senior functionaries of the State Police and political leaders was transferred from the State Police to the CBI in State of Punjab vs. CBI; (2011) 9 SCC 182.

In Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan; (2015) 9 SCC 795, investigation into the death of a young girl student due to ragging was transferred to the CBI on account of coercion by the college authorities and police, and fabrication of medical evidence in connivance with the doctors. Justice T.S. Thakur had notably observed that, "The sensibility of the victims of the crime or their next of kin is not wholly irrelevant in such situations.".

Recently, the Supreme Court, in Rhea Chakraborty vs. State of Bihar & Ors.; 2020 SCC OnLine SC 654, accorded approval for the ongoing CBI investigation into the Sushant Singh Rajput case and directed transfer of all future investigation to the CBI in order to inspire public confidence and do complete justice in the matter.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Registered Document is presumed to be valid unless otherwise proved

 https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/29674/29674_2019_34_1501_24672_Judgement_16-Nov-2020.pdf Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. 8 (2006) 5 SCC 353 The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below: “27.  There   is   a   presumption   that   a   registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of  proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.  In Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 582 "It has b...
Read more

Whether is was any reason explained to pass the order by authority

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf The matter was reminded back with an opportunity to the State to provide reasons for the administrative decision taken to rescind the policy  The authority has choice to explained the reasons or pass the fresh order on the fresh cause of action with explained reasons. There cannot be post hoc justification of the action. The post hoc justification doctrine merely requires that courts assess agency action based on the official explanations of the agency decision makers, and not based on after-the-fact explanations advanced by agency lawyers during litigation. As the D. C. Circuit has explained, the post hoc justification doctrine “is not a time barrier which freezes an agency’s exercise of its judgment after an initial decision has been made and bars it from further articulation of its reasoning. It is a rule directed at reviewing courts which forbids judges to uphold agency action on the basis of rationales offered by anyo...
Read more

Articles

Image
As  Home News Columns Dealstreet Interviews Apprentice Lawyer Viewpoint Legal Jobs Vikram Hegde, Shantanu Lakhotia COLUMNS Transfer Petitions and video conferencing: Time for another look at Santhini? Unless the courts contemplate complete stoppage of work till free travel without risk of being infected becomes possible, video conference hearings are inevitable. Vikram Hegde   &  Shantanu Lakhotia Jul 1, 2020, 10:05 AM IST As lawyers, we are already grappling with what we may call  video conference vagaries  since the beginning of the lockdown. At the same time, we are all aware that sooner rather than later, litigants will also have to start appearing in courts by video conference. The story of the interface of a litigant with the court being mediated by a video link starts with the amendment of Section 167(2)(b) of the CrPC, which provides, among other things, that a magistrate may extend the detention of an accused in judicial custody. Such extension...
Read more