- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 23 January 1978
- Bench
- V.R. Krishna Iyer:
Headnote
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]
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
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 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.
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
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.
Case details
Arising from
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 40 of 1977.
Under Section 4,Q6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Appearances
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.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.