A
B
c
D
E
F
604
RAM CHANDER SINGH SAGAR AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.
January 23. 1978
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND }ASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Power of Supreme Court to transfer criminal cases-Scope of
S.
406 of
Criminal Procedure Code (Act IL of 1974), 1973 (1898 <:ode S. 527) r/w
Order XXXVi S, C. Rules 1966.
1'he Petitioners moved this Court u/s 406 Crl. P.
C.,
1973
r/w Order
XX.XVI Supreme Court Rules, 1966, when their matter was at the 1nvest1gauon
stage itself for an order of transfer of the case to some other court.
Dis1nissing the petition for tran~fer, the Court
HELD : The Code of Crin1i11al Procedure clolhes the Supre1ne (,'ourt with
power u/s 406 to transfer a case for appeal from one High Court or a Court
subordinate to one High Court to another High Court or to a Court subordinate
thereto, but not with the power to transfer investigations from one police station
to another in the country simply because the tirst information or a remand
report is forwarded to a Court. 1o come to this Court directly seeking an order
ot transfer in such a case is travelling along the wrong street.
If justice
IS
denied, there are other redresses, not u/s 406.
[604 F-lr 605 A]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.
40
of 1977.
Under Section 4,Q6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
D. P. Bhandare and N. S. Das Bahl for 'the Petitioners.
V. P. Rama, Adv. Genl. Tamil Nadu and A. V. Rangam for the
Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-The Code of Criminal Procedure clothes this
Court with power under s. 406 to transfer a case or appeal from one
High Court or a Court subordinate to one High Court to another High
Court or to a Court subordinate thereto.
But it does not clothe this
Court with the power to transfer investigations from one police station
to another in the country simply because the first information or
a
G
remand report is forwarded to a Court.
The application before us
stems from a misconception about the scope of s. 406.
There is as
yet no case pending before any Court as has been made clear in the
counter affidavit of the State of Tamil Nadu.
In the light of this coun-
ter affidavit, nothing can be done except to dismiss this petition.
H
If the petitioners are being directed to appeal in a far-off Court
during investigatory stage it is for them to move that Court for appro-
priate orders so that _they. may not be tor~ent~d J;iY lon!l travel or
otherwise teased by 1ud1cial process.
[f 1ust1ce is denied \here ve
••
(
{
)
)
_,
j
) ,
RAM CHANDER v. TAMIL NADU (Krishna Iyer, J.)
60 5
.other redresses, not under s. 406, though it is unfortunate that the peti-
.tioners have not chosen to move that court to be absolved from appear-
.ance until necessitated by the circumstances or the progress of the in-
vestigation.
To come to this Court directly seeking an order of trans-
fer is travelling along the wrong street.
We are sure that if the second
petitioner is ailing, as is represented, and this fact is brought to the
notice of the Court which has directed her appearance, just orders will
be passed in case there is veracity behind the representation.
We
need hardly say courts should use their processes to the purpose
of
;advancing justice, not to harass parties. Anyway, so far as the peti-
tion for transfer is concerned, to borrow a cliche, the less said the better
and so we dismiss it.
:S.R.
Petition dismissed.
A
B
Lex