LexBHIARU RAM AND ORS. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 9 S.C.R. 554 BHIARU RAM AND ORS. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS. (Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 37 of 2009) AUGUST 03, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.406 - Transfer petition - Plea of inconvenience for seeking transfer of C criminal case pending before Special Court, CBI, Greater Mumbai, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Jaipur- Main accused in the case was alleged to have possessed disproportionate to his known sources of income - Case against petitioners was that they actively aided and abetted D the main accused by fabricating false evidence to justify huge cash recoveries from the house of main accused - Held: In order to transfer a case from one State to another or from one plEJce to another, there must be "reasonable apprehension" on the part of the party to a case that justice may not be done E - In the instant petition, accused seeking transfer of case on the ground that most of the alleged disproportionate assets were situated at Rajasthan and most of the witnesses were residents of Rajasthan, Jaipur, in particular - Perusal of charge sheet showed that witnesses to be examined were not F only from Jaipur, Rajasthan, but also from various other places including Mumbai - Therefore, though the petitioners may suffer a little inconvenience, the mere inconvenience cannot be sufficient ground for the exercise of power of transfer, as it was not shown that the trial in the chosen forum would result in failure of justice - Prevention of Corruption Act, G 1988 - ss.13(1)(c), 13(d) - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.109, 193 - Administration of justice - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 H - s.25. An FIR was registered at Delhi against respondent 554 BHIARU RAM AND ORS. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 555 INVESTIGATION AND ORS. no.3, a Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai under A Section 13(2) r.w. Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for possession of assets in his own name and in the name of his family members disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period i.e. 1.4.1991 to 4.10.2005. During the said B period, respondent no.3 was posted at various places such as Calcutta, Ahmadabad, Jaipur and Mumbai. After carrying out search at the office of respondent no.3 and his family members at various places, the CBI filed charge sheet before Special Court, CBI, Mumbai. In the charge C sheet, petitioner nos1-9 were arrayed as accused 5-13. They were charge sheeted for commission of offences under Section 109 read with Section 193 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of·the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for actively aiding and abetting D respondent nos. 3 and 4 by fabricating false evidence through preparation of false agreements to sell, to justify the huge cash recoveries from the residential premises of respondent No.3. The instant petition was filed by the petitioners- E accused nos.5-13, under Section 406 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of the case pending before the Special Court, CBI, Greater Mumbai, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Jaipur. The ground for transfer of case in the petition was that in the charge sheet, most of the alleged F disproportionate assets/properties were ~ituated at Rajasthan and most of the witnesses were residents of Rajasthan, Jaipur, in particular. Dismissing the transfer petition, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 406 Cr.P.C. empowers the Supreme Court to transfer any case or appeal from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal G H 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court. It is clear from the provision that for the ends of justice, the Supreme Court can transfer any criminal case or appeal to any place. In order to transfer 8 a case from one State to another or from one place to another, there must be "reasonable apprehension" on the part of the party to a case that justice may not be done. Mere allegation that there was apprehension that justice will not be done, cannot be the basis of transfer. In fact, C in the instant case, it was not the claim of the petitioners that they would not get fair justice at Special Court, CBI, Greater Mumbai but they were seeking transfer mainly on the basis of convenience stating that all of them
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.