LexMRUDUL M. DAMLE & ANR. versus C.B.I. NEW DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 919 MRUDUL M. DAMLE & ANR. v. C.B.I. NEW DELHI (Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 17 of 2012) MAY 10, 2012 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 406 - Prayer for transfer of criminal case from Delhi to Thane, Maharashtra - A B On ground of convenience of the two petitioners-accused and C the witnesses cited in the charge sheet by the prosecution - Petitioners facing prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for amassing assets disproportionate to known sources of income - 82 out of the 92 witnesses from Maharashtra - Petitioner no. 1 working in Thane while D petitioner no. 2 posted in Gujarat - Held: Trial in Rohini Court at Delhi would be inconvenient not only to the accused persons but also to almost all the witnesses cited by the prosecution except 4 who may be in or around Delhi - Case even otherwise not Delhi centric in the true sense inasmuch E as the only reason the FIR was registered in Delhi was the fact that petitioner No. 2 was posted in Delhi during a part of the check period - CBI is fully equipped with an office at Bombay and a Court handling CBI cases is established at Thane also, thus, no reason why the transfer of the case would F cause any hardship to the prosecution especially when searches relied upon by the prosecution were conducted at Thane in which the prosecution claims to have discovered a part of the assets allegedly acquired by the petitioners - Expeditious disposal of the trial is a/so a facet of fairness of G the trial and speedy trial is intact a fundamental right - When witnesses from distant places are sought to be summoned, early conclusion of trial becomes so much more difficult apart from the fact that the prosecution has to bear additional burden 919 H 920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A by way of travelling expenses of the official and non-official witnesses summoned to appear before the Court - Criminal Case pending in the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini Courts, New Delhi accordingly transferred to the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Court of Sessions at Thane, B Maharashtra - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(1)(e) and 13(2). In the instant petition under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners prayed for transfer of Criminal Case pending in the Court of Special C Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini Courts, New Delhi to the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Court of Sessions at Thane, Maharashtra on the ground of convenience of the parties and the witnesses cited in the charge sheet by the prosecution. D The petitioners are husband and wife. While petitioner No.2-husband is currently posted as Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax at Vapi, Gujarat, the petitioner no.1-wife is practicing as E a Chartered Accountant in the State of Maharashtra. They are facing prosecution under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for amassing assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. 88 out of the 92 witnesses listed in the charge-sheet are F from the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners asserted that transfer of the case from Delhi to Thane would not only be convenient to the two accused persons facing the trial but also to the witnesses cited by the prosecution who shall find it easier to appear for their deposition at G Thane rather than travelling all the way to Delhi. Allowing the petition, the Court HELD: 1. Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. empowers this Court to transfer cases from one High Court to another H High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one MRUDUL M. DAMLE & ANR. v. C.B.I. NEW DELHI 921 High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior A jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court whenever it is made to appear to this Court that an order to that effect is expedient for the ends of justice. The question of expediency depends upon the facts of each case, the paramount consideration being the need to meet the ends B of justice. [Para 5] [925-F-H; 926-A-B] Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde (1990) 1 sec 4: 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 469 - relied on. 2.1. The material facts relevant to the determination C of the question of expediency are not in dispute. The charge-sheet enlists 92 witnesses, 88 out of whom are from outside Delhi and from different places in Maharashtra. Petitioner No.1 is a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.