MLA FROM MAU DISTRICT, UP versus JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 863 · Decided: 26-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
863
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) & Ors.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 409 of 2020)
MARCH 26, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Constitution of India/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Art.
32/s.406 – Petition u/Art. 32 read with s. 406 – Maintainability of –
On facts, various criminal cases filed against sitting MLA from Mau
District, UP – Ten criminal cases pending trial against him,
transferred to Special Court and accused lodged in District Jail,
Banda, UP, pursuant to order of Special Judge – Meanwhile case
registered against accused in District Mohali, Punjab u/ss. 386 and
506 IPC – Pursuant to the issuance of production warrant,
Superintendent of District Jail, Banda, UP, without permission from
the Court of Special Judge (MPs/MLAs), Allahabad gave custody
of the accused to the Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, Punjab –
Thereafter, on passing of remand order, accused lodged in District
Jail, Roopnagar, Punjab, and since then, he is continuing in the
said jail – For last two years, number of warrants issued for
production of accused before the various Courts in UP but Jail
Authorities, Roopnagar, Punjab refused to give custody on the
pretext that the accused was unwell – Writ Petition u/Art. 32 rw s.
406 by State of UP seeking directions to the State of Punjab and
Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, Punjab, to transfer the criminal
proceedings and trial in the criminal case pending before the
Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, to the Court of Special Judge (MP/
MLA), Allahabad, UP, and directions to Jail Superintendent,
Roopnagar and State of Punjab to handover the custody of the
accused from Roopnagar Jail, District Ropar, Punjab to District
Jail Banda, UP – Held: The State, being a prosecuting agency in
the Criminal Administration, is vitally interested in such
administration, as such, the State is considered as a “party interested”
within the meaning of Sub-Section (2) of s. 406 and petition u/s.
406 is maintainable – However, relief sought for transfer of the
case is not granted, since in the criminal case on the file of Police
Station Mathaur, District Mohali, Punjab, no final report is filed by
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 863
863
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
864
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
the Police and it is at the stage of investigation and as such, s. 406
Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed into service – As regards, the transfer
from one prison to another, a convict or an undertrial prisoner,
who disobeys the law of the land, cannot oppose his transfer from
one prison to another – Courts are not to be a helpless bystander,
when the rule of law is being challenged with impunity – Arms of
law are long enough to remedy the situation – In such situations,
this Court can exercise power u/Art. 142 to order transfer of prisoner
from one prison to another, thus, issuance of directions to the Jail
Superintendent Roopnagar and State of Punjab, to handover
custody of the accused to the State of UP, within a period of two
weeks, so as to lodge him in District Jail, Banda in UP where the
Jail Authorities would extend the necessary medical facilities to
accused.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 406 – Power under –
Words “party interested” – Interpretation of – Held: s. 406 confers
power on this Court to transfer of cases and appeals on the
application filed by the Attorney-General of India or by a party
interested – In the criminal administration system, State is the
prosecuting agency, working for and on behalf of the people of the
State, as such the State can be said to be a party interested within
the meaning of s. 406(2) of the Code – Words “party interested”
are of a wide import and, thus, have to be interpreted by giving a
wider meaning – Statute must be interpreted to advance the cause
of the Statute and not to defeat the same – Interpretation of statutes.
Partly allowing the writ petition and dismissing the transfer
petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The instant petition, filed under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India / Section 406 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, is held to be maintainable under Section 406 of
the Code. The relief, sought for transfer of the case-transfer the
criminal proceedings and trial in the criminal case pending against
the 3rd Respondent-sitting MLA from Mau District, UP, before
the Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, to the Court of Special Judge
(MP/MLA), Allahabad, UP is not granted, inasmuch as the case
in Crime No.05 of 2019, on the file of Police Station Matha

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