LexK. ANBAZHAGAN versus THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B K. ANBAZHAGAN v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ORS. ETC. NOVEMBER 18, 2003 [S.N. VA~ VA AND H.K. SEMA, Jl] Penal Code, 1860; Section 1208/Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section I 3(2) rlw Section 13(1) (e): C Trial of cases of corruption/conspiracy by Special Court-Trial Court dispensed with personal appearance of accused on personal hardship- Petition for transfer of cases to another State on ground. that course of justice being subverted-Another petition allegedly on same issue pending before the High Court-Jurisdiction of Supreme Court-Held: Petitions filed before D the High Court and Supreme Court under different provisions of /aw- Jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Courts under the provisions are distinct and different-Proceedings in transfer petitions cannot be construed as parallel proceedings-In the facts and circumstances of the case, prejudice having been caused to the prosecution, reasonable apprehension of failure of justice exist-Hence, Transfer Petitions allowed and cases transferred for E trial in the State of Karnataka-State to constitute Special Court, to provide security/requisite facilities to witnesses-Directions issued-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 2 I-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 313 and 406. Non-disclosure of facts as to pendency of similar matters before the F High Court-Effect of-Held: non-disclosure of such fact for justified reasons would not non-suit accused-petitioner to approach Supreme Court. G H 'Party to the proceedings' vis-a-vis 'Party interested'-Meaning of in the context of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Evidence Act, I 872; Section I 54: Recalling of witnesses after their examination/cross-examination-Necessity of-Held: Recalling of witnesses cannot be allowed on ground of non-availability of the counsel due to his preoccupation. 610 I • K. ANBAZHAGAN v. SUPDT. OF POLICE 611 Words and Phrases: A 'party interested'-Meaning of in the context of criminal jurisprudence. Two petitions have been filed under Section 406 Cr.P.C. for transfer of certain cases from Special Court, Chennai to a Court of equal and competent jurisdiction in any other State, on the alleged ground that the course of justice B is being subverted. In these cases, respondents were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 1208 IPC, 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was contended for the petitioners that a number of witnesses have bee!I recalled for cross-examination on the ground of non-availability of the C counsel as he was busy in other cases; that personal appearance of respondent No.2 for examination was dispensed with by the Trial Court on ground of physical hardship; and that the public prosecutor did not oppose the application. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that petitioners did not have locus standi to file transfer petitions; that since petitioners did not D di~close the fact regarding pendency of writ petitions befor~ the High Court on identical issues, petitions are liable to be dismissed; that petitions had been filed on ground of political vendetta against respondent No.2; and that merely by declaring the prosecution witnesses hostile, no prejudice had been caused to the case of prosecution; and that since transfer petitions have been filed belatedly, the same are liable to be dismissed for !aches/negligence on the E part of petitioners. Allowing the transfer petitions with certain directions, the Court HELD: 1.1. Non-disclosure of the fact about pendency of proceedings before the High Court would not non-suit the petitioner to approach the F Supreme Court with an application under Section 406 Cr.P.C. This Court might have viewed seriously the conduct of the petitioners in not disclosing about the proceedings pending in the High Court. However, it appears that justice is not being done. The course of justice cannot be allowed to be subverted. Further, even though some statements of facts made before the High Court, are in parimateria with the facts stated before this Court, these G petitions cannot be held as parallel proceedings. The petitions pending before the High Court are under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Transfer Petitions have been filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Con~titution and the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 406 Cr.P.C.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.