ABDUL NAZAR MADANI ETC versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 1028 · Decided: 05-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
ABDUL NAZAR MADANI ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
MAY5, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973~ection 406-Transfer petition~eek­
ing transfer to another State-On the apprehension of not getting fair trial in 
the State-In view of surcharged communal tension in the area-And on the 
ground of not getting adequate representation by lawyers-All arrangements 
for trial already made-Most of the co-accused and the witnesses belonging 
to the place of trial-No evidence that whole of the State communally 
surcharged-Accused adequately represented-Held, the transfer of the case 
at this stage, is not only against the interests of the pmsecution but also 
against the interests of the other accused persons, the prosecution witnesses 
and the convenience of all the concerned in the matter: 
Sections 406 & 407-Transfer petition-Considerations for transfer-
Held, any party can seek transfer of a case on the apprehension of not getting 
a fair trial-But such apprehension should be reasonable and not based on 
conjectures and sunnises-The decision has to be based on the facts and 
circumstances of each case- Convenience of parties, i.e., the prosecution, 
other accused, the witnesses and the larger interests of the society, is relevan_t 
consideration. 
181 accused including the petitioners, were alleged to be involved in 
F 
Coimbatore serial bomb blast case, and were charged under sections 120-
B, 302, 307, 449, 465, 468, 471, 212, 153-A{l), 148, 149, 201, 109, 114 and 
l53 IPC; Syctions 3, 4(b), 5 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Sec-
tions -l5(t-B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu 
Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992; and their case was 
G 
pending in the Trial Court in Coimbatore (Tamil Nadu). 
The petitioners filed transfer petition before this Court for transfer 
of the above-mentioned case from Coimbatore to any Sessions Court in 
Kerala, on the grounds that there was no possibility of fair trial in the State 
of Tamil Nadu in view of the communally surcharged tension in the State; 
H 
that they and other accused persons were not likely to get proper legal 
1028 
-
A.N. MADAN! v. STATE 
1029 
- r 
assistance; and alternatively submitted that their case be transferred to 
A 
some other place in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioners relied on the 
averments made by the Commissioner of Police in an order wherein it was 
stated that Coimbatore city had become communally hypersensitive place 
~ 
in the recent years in view of the communal riots . 
. 
Respondent,State contended that there was no communal tension in 
B 
the State; and that advocates have already appeared for the accused in the 
i 
courts at Coimbatore. The respondents also pointed out that out of the 168 
accused, who were put in several jails in the State, more than 150 accused 
were from Coimbatore; that total number of witnesses, likely to be pro-
cluced were 2333, out of whom 2083 were Tamil speaking witnesses; that c 
special from exclusively for speedy trial of the case, was constituted; that 
the building adjacent to the Central Prison, Coimbatore was remodelled 
with the object of accommodating the special court, costing a huge amount; 
and that final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. consisting of statements 
and documents running into 16480 pages in Tamil had been submitted. 
D 
Dismissing the petitions, this Court 
HELD : 1. The purpose of criminal trial is to dispense fair and 
impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is 
t 
shown that public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously 
E 
undermined any party can seek the transfer of a case within the State, 
under Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406 Cr.P.C. 
The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is 
required to be reasonable and not imaginary based upon conjectures and 
surmises. H it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not 
possible impartially and objectively and without any bias, before any court 
F 
or even at any place, the appropriate court may transfer the case to 
another court where it feels that holding of fair and proper trial is condo-
cive. No universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a 
transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of 
each case. Convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be pro-
G 
duced at the trial is

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.