USMANGANJADAMBHAIVAHORA versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 08-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
[2016] l S.C.R. 56 
USMANGANJADAMBHAIVAHORA 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1592-1593 of 2015) 
JANUARY 8, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 - s. 408 - Power of 
Sessions Judge to transfer cases and appeals - Application uls. 
408 to transfer the matter from the court where trial was pending to 
the court of another Sessions Judge - Rejected by Principal Sessions 
Judge holding that once the trial had commenced, he has no 
jurisdiction to transfer the case - In appeal, High Court directed 
the Principal Sessions Judge to transfer the case to any other 
Sessions Judge - Sustainability of·- Held: Not sustainable - Solely 
because accused filed an application for transfer. the judge is not 
required to express his disinclination - He is required under law to 
do his duty - He is not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to 
the callous allegations made by the accused and recuse himself 
from the case - if this can be the foundation to transfer a case, it 
would bring anarchy in the adjudicatory process - Unscrupulous 
litigants would indulge themselves in court hunting. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Seeking transfer at the drop of a hat is 
inconceivable. An order of transfer is not to be passed as a matter 
F 
of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed 
some apprehension about proper conduct of the trial. The power 
has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where 
it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. 
There has to be a real apprehension that there would be 
miscarriage of justice. [Para 11] [63-E-F] 
G 
Nahar Singh Yadav and another v. Union of India and 
others 2010 (13) SCR 851:(2011) 1 SCC 307 - relied 
on. 
1.2 In the instant case, the apprehension that has been 
H stated is absolutely mercurial and cannot remotely be stated to 
56 
USMANGANI ADAMBHAI VAHORA v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
57 
be reasonable. The High Court could not have deduced that he A 
should have declined to conduct the trial. This kind of observation 
is absolute impermissible in law, for there is no acceptable reason 
on the part of the trial judge to show his disinclination. Solely 
because an accused has filed an application for transfer, he is not 
required to express his disinclination. He is required under law 
to do his duty. He has to perform his duty and not to succumb to 
the pressure put by the accused by making callous allegations. 
He is not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to such 
allegations and recuse himself from the case. If this can be the 
foundation to transfer a case, it will bring anarchy in the 
adjudicatory process. The unscrupulous litigants will indulge 
themselves in court hunting. If they are allowed such room, they 
do not have to face the trial before a court in which they do not 
feel comfortable. The High Court gravely erred in this regard. 
B 
c 
So far as the non-examination of the witnesses is concerned, the 
matter had travelled to the High Court in revision assailing the 
D 
order passed under Section 319 CrPC. The High Court did not 
advert to the issue who was seeking adjournment and what was 
the role of the trial judge. Grant of adjournment could have been 
dealt with by the High Court in a different manner. It has to be 
borne in mind that a judge who discharges his duty is bound to 
commit errors. The same have to be rectified. The accused has 
never moved the superior court seeking its intervention for 
speedy trial. The High Court has innovated a new kind of approach 
to transfer the case. [Para 12] [63-G; 64-B-F] 
1.3 The order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. 
The finding as regards the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge is 
sustained, and as far as the direction to the Principal Sessions 
Judge to transfer the case from the 3"' Additional Sessions Judge 
to some other court being vulnerable and wholly unsustainable 
is set aside. The trial judge to proceed with the trial and dispose 
of the same. [Para 13] [65-B] 
Gurcharan Dass Chadha v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 
SC 1418:1966 SCR 678; Abdul Nazar Madani v. State 
of T.N. 2000 (3) SCR 1028:(2000) 6 SCC 204; Captain 
Amarinder Singh v. P.;rkash Singh Badal and others 
2009 (9) SCR 194:(2009) 6 SCC 260; Lalu Prasad 
E 
F 
G 
H 
58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] I S.C.R. 
A 
alias Latu Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand 2013 
(8) SCR163:(2013) 8 SCC 593; K.P. Ti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.