JAYENDRA SARASWATHY SWAMIGAL, TAMIL NADU versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 556 · Decided: 26-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JA YENDRA SARASWA THY SWAMI GAL, TAMIL NADU 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 26, 2005 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. AND G.P. MATHUR, J.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Section 406-Transfer of criminal case-Petition for-Criminal case 
C pending against accused in Tamil Nadu Courts-Accused allegedly entered 
into conspiracy for getting one 'S' murdered-While 'S' was in office two 
persons armed with 'aruval' came there and caused multiple injuries to 'S' 
who died later-State machinery took undue interest in securing conviction 
of the accused by any means-Criminal prosecution launched against lawyers 
D connected with the defence of the accused-Detention order passed against 
I 6 co-accused soon efter grant of bail to the accused-Prosecution also 
launched against persons expressing dissent against the accused-Bank 
accounts of the Mutt frozen thereby paralyzing the religious and other 
activities of the Mutt and other connected bodies-Held: The actions of the 
prosecuting agency and the State machinery are responsible for creating a 
E reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused and other co-accused 
that they would not get justice if the trial was held in the State of Tamil 
Nadu-Hence, the criminal trial pending against the accused and other co-
accused transferred to a place outside the State of Tamil Nadu i.e. Pondicherry 
where the same language is spoken and, therefore, there would be no difficulty 
F in examining witnesses and documents. 
According to the prosecution, the petitioner had entered into a criminal 
conspiracy with some other co-accused for getting the in-charge 
Administrative Manager of the 'Devarajaswamy Devasthanam' murdered. 
While the said in-charge Administrative Manager was sitting on a chair in 
G his office two persons armed with an 'aruval' came there and caused multiple 
injuries to him as a result of which he died. The petitioner was arrested and 
a charge sheet against him and 24 co-accused was filed in the Principal 
Sessions Court in the State of Tamil Nadu. 
The petitioner filed the present Transfer Petition under Section 406 of 
H 
556 
JAYENDRA SARASWATHYS\VAMIGAL, TAMIL NADU "· STATEOFTAMll. NADU 
557 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking transfer of the sessions case A 
pending against him to any other place outside the State of Tamil Nadu on the 
following grounds:-
(i) The State machinery in Tamil Nadu had shown great zeal and had 
made extraordinary efforts, much beyond what was required under the law, to 
anyhow secure the conviction of the petitioner and to achieve that object had B 
procured and fabricated false evidence. 
(ii) Concocted and false cases had been registered against 15 co-accused 
and detention order had been passed against them soon after grant of bail to 
the petitioner. 
(iii) The advocates appearing for the petitioner and other co-accused had 
been put under great threat on account of lodging of false and fabricated 
criminal cases against them and a situation had been created wherein they 
might not be in a position to defend the petitioner properly. 
c 
(iv) The Mutt and other associated and connected trusts had 183 D 
accounts in banks, which were all frozen by the Special Investigation Team 
resulting in paralyzing the religious and other activities of the Mutt and other 
connected bodies. 
(v) Criminal cases had been lodged against some leading journalists of E 
the country and other prominent personalities who had written articles 
criticizing the arrest of the petitioner. 
(vi) Thus, the petitioner seriously apprehended that he would not get a 
fair trial in the State of Tamil Nadu. 
Allowing the petition, the Court 
HELD: I. If there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to 
F 
a case that justice may not be done, he may seek transfer of the case. The 
apprehension entertained by the party must be a reasonable one and the case 
cannot be transferred on a mere allegation that there is apprehension that G 
justice will not be done. 1578-C-DI 
Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu 120001 6 SCC 204 and 
Gurcharan Dass Chadha v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1966) SC 1418, relied 
on. 
H 
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
G.X. Francis v. Banke Bihari Singh AIR (1958) SC 309, cited. 
2. The State machinery in Tamil Nadu is not only taking an undue 
interest but is going to any extent in securing the conviction of the accused 
by any means and to stifle even publication of any article or expressio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.