K.ANBAZHAGAN versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENNAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 495 · Decided: 17-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
--· 
! L. 
K.ANBAZHAGAN 
A 
v. 
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENNAI AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 17, 2004 
[S.N. VARIA VA AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, I 97 3-Section 406-Transfer of case from 
State a/Tamil Nadu to Karnatakcr-Petitionsfor modification of transfer order 
seeking transfer to Pondicherry-Personal security and free and fair trial C 
apprehended in State of Karnataka-State of Karnataka undertaking_ to ensure 
security of the petitioners and free and fair trial-Held: In the facts and 
circumstances of the case, no case is made out for modification-Pondicherry 
falling within same jurisdiction of High Court of Madras, transfer thereto 
would amount to transfer of case to the jurisdiction of same High Court, 
which is not contemplated u/s 406. 
D 
In a transfer petition u/s 406 Cr.P.C., Supreme Court had 
. transferred a case from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka. Miscellaneous petitions 
were filed seeking modification of the judgment transferring the case. 
Petitioners sought transfer of the case to Pondicherry instead of 
Karnataka, apprehending their security and free and fair trial in view of E 
surcharged atmosphere between the States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka 
due to Cauvery Water dispute and in view of terror of forest brigand 
Veerappan; and that ifthe cases were transferred to Pondicherry, the same 
having Tamil speaking people, translation of Tamil documents and 
depositions would not be required. 
F 
State of Karnataka in its Counter affidavit undertook that the State 
of Karnataka would ensure free and fair trial and it would provide such 
security as would be necessary. 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. In the judgment deciding the transfer petition, this Court 
was of the view that it is expedient for the ends of justice, the cases be 
transferred from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka for trial in accordance with 
law. Similarly, the lurking apprehension raised by the applicant is well 
495 
H 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A safeguarded by the undertaking of the Karnataka Government with 
regard to the personal security of the applicant and witnesses and others. 
The apprehensions with regard to the Cauvery Water dispute, forest 
brigand Veerappan, have got nothing to do with the judicial function of 
the Court. In the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for 
B modification of the order under reference. (501-C-E) 
2. The Court has exercised its powers under Section 406 Cr.P.C. 
Section 406 enjoins that it is expedient for the ends of justice, this Court 
may direct any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High 
Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction 
C subordinate to another High Court. Admittedly, Union Territory of 
Pondicherry does not have a separate High Court, it is within the 
j~risdiction of Madras High Court. If the case is transferred to 
Pondicherry, it would amount to transfer of case from Madras High Court 
to the same jurisdiction of the High Court. This situation is not 
contemplated under Section 406 Cr. P.C. [499-C-D) 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Misc. Petition 
Nos. 11439-40 of 2003. 
IN 
E 
Transfer Petition Cr! Nos. 77-78 of 2003. 
T.R. Andhyarujina, R. Shanmugasundaram, R. Mohan and V.G. 
Pragasam for the Petitioner. 
K.K. Venugopal, C.S. Vaidyanathan, K.V. Vishwanathan, K.V. 
F Venkataraman, N. Jothi and B. Raghunath for Applicant. 
A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, S. Nanda Kumar, M. Yogesh Khanna, R. 
Suresh, S. Venketesh Perumal, Rakesh K. Sharma K.V. Vijayakumar, 
Subramonium Prasad, R. Gopala Krishnan, P.N. Ramalingam, R.N. Keshwani, 
A.N. Jayram, Adv. General for State, San jay R. Hedge and Anil K. Misra for 
G the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SEMA, J. By these applications the applicant sought to modify the 
judgment dated 18th November, 2003 passed by this Court in Transfer Petition 
H (Criminal) Nos. 77-78 of 2003. By the aforesaid judgment, this Court after 
-
-
-
-
K. ANBAZHAGAN v.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [SEMA, J.) 497 
hearing counsel for both the sides at length allowed the tnmsfer petitions in A 
terms of the following directions: 
"(a)The State of Karnataka in consultation with the Chief Justice of 
the High Court of Karnataka shall constitute a Special court under the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to whom CC No. 7 of 1997 and 
CC No.2 of 200 I pending on the file of the XI Addi. Sessions Judge B 
(Special Court No. I) Chennai in the Stat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.