A Single Judge Bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan of the Allahabad High Court has in the case of Pramod Kumar Tiwari @ Lota Tiwari v. State of UP & Anr. observed that seeking transfer of criminal trial at the drop of a hat is not recognized by the Courts or by any tenet of law. The Court held that an order of transfer is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the conduct of the trial by a Presiding Officer. It was also held that this power would have to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide complete justice and credibility to the trial.
Factual Background
The instant application was moved by the applicant/ accused with a prayer to set aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Transfer Application arising out of a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307, 504, 506, 120-B/34 of the I.P.C. whereby the request of the applicant to transfer the above-mentioned case to some other court from the court where the same is pending has been rejected, with a further prayer to transfer the above case to any other court of the same Judgeship.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court at the outset noted that when the application for transfer of the case was moved to the Sessions Judge, the arguments have been completed on behalf of one accused as is apparent from the report which was sent by the Presiding Officer of the court to the Sessions Judge which has also been quoted in the order of the Sessions Judge. It is also apparent that the Sessions Judge while rejecting the application of the applicant has categorically opined that the Presiding Officer has vehemently denied the charges leveled against him and has also stated in his report that the same case was previously fixed for judgment in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court however the judgment could not be passed and thereafter the case has been transferred to the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh. The grounds which have been made the basis of moving this transfer application show that the applicant is having merely an apprehension.
The Court further noted that,
"Seeking transfer of criminal trial at the drop of a hat is not recognized by the courts or by any tenent of law. An order of transfer is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the conduct of the trial by a Presiding Officer. This power would have to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide complete justice and credibility to the trial as held in Nahar Singh Yadav and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. the apprehension with regard to the miscarriage of justice should be real and substantial.”
The Court opined that,
“In the instant case, this Court is disposed to think that apprehension which has been made the basis to seek an order for transfer of the case pending before the court below is absolutely weak and cannot be remotely said to be reasonable.”
The Court did not consider it sufficient to exercise the jurisdiction for the transfer of the aforesaid case from the court where the same was pending.
“For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I do not find any substance in the application under Section 407 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant and, therefore, the same is dismissed. However, as the case is pending for long for disposal, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the above case and conclude the same at the earliest without providing soft adjournments to the parties.”
Case Details
Case Name: Pramod Kumar Tiwari @ Lota Tiwari v. State of UP & Anr.
Case Number: U/S 407 CR.P.C. No. - 31 of 2021
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :