2001 (7) TMI 1188 - SC - Companies Law

Whether the High Court would have power to transfer the case from one judge of the Special Court to another? Held that - In view of matter the Special Court is not subordinate to the High Court and that the High Court would have no power under section 407 to transfer a case from one judge of the Special Court to another. In this appeal we are not concerned with the question whether the High Court would have judicial superintendence under article 226 and/or 227 and/or whether in exercise of such jurisdiction even if there is one whether a High Court would or could transfer a case from one judge to another. We therefore express no opinion thereon. In this view of the matter we hold that section 407 does not apply. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court has the power to transfer a case from one judge of the Special Court to another under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Whether the Special Court is subordinate to the High Court.
3. The applicability of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution regarding the transfer of cases within the Special Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Power of High Court to Transfer Cases under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The primary issue was whether the High Court could transfer a case from one judge of the Special Court to another under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Section 407 provides the High Court with the power to transfer cases and appeals to ensure a fair and impartial trial, address questions of law of unusual difficulty, or for the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or if expedient for the ends of justice.

Mr. Chidambaram argued that the High Court had such power under Section 407, as the Special Court was a criminal court envisaged by the CrPC, and the provisions of the CrPC applied to it. He referred to Sections 5, 6, 7, and 9 of the Special Court Act, emphasizing that the Special Court should be deemed a Court of Session and thus subordinate to the High Court.

However, the counter-argument presented by Mr. Malhotra highlighted that the Special Court, being manned by sitting judges of the High Court, was not administratively subordinate to the High Court. He argued that judicial superintendence alone was insufficient for subordination under Section 407, which required both judicial and administrative control.

The court concluded that the Special Court was not subordinate to the High Court and thus, Section 407 of the CrPC did not apply. The judgment noted that the Special Court Act did not incorporate a provision similar to Section 10 of the 1979 Act, which allowed the Supreme Court to transfer cases between Special Courts, indicating that such power was not intended to be vested in the High Court.

2. Subordination of Special Court to the High Court:
The court examined whether the Special Court was subordinate to the High Court. The analysis included references to the Special Courts Bill, 1978, and the judgment in the case of Special Courts Bill, 1978 (In re), where it was held that the Special Courts were not subordinate to the High Court.

The court observed that the Special Court, while deemed a Court of Session for specific proceedings, did not fall under the administrative control of the High Court as per Article 235 of the Constitution. The judgment cited the case of T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, which clarified that judicial superintendence under Articles 226 and 227 did not equate to administrative subordination.

The court concluded that the Special Court, being manned by sitting judges of the High Court and performing simultaneous duties, could not be deemed subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Section 407.

3. Applicability of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution:
Mr. Chidambaram argued that even if Section 407 did not apply, the High Court could exercise its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to transfer cases within the Special Court. He cited cases like L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, which discussed the High Court's superintendence over tribunals and special courts.

The court, however, did not delve into the question of whether the High Court could transfer cases under Articles 226 and 227, as it was not the primary issue in this appeal. The judgment focused on the applicability of Section 407 and concluded that it did not apply to the Special Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the Special Court was not subordinate to the High Court and that the High Court did not have the power to transfer cases from one judge of the Special Court to another under Section 407 of the CrPC. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →