9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Transfer of Criminal Case u/s 406 CrPC from Delhi to Thane for convenience of parties and witnesses.
Details of the Judgment: 1. The petitioners, a husband and wife facing prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, sought transfer of their case from Delhi to Thane, Maharashtra, due to convenience issues. The case involved assets disproportionate to income acquired by the husband while posted in Delhi. The charge-sheet listed 92 witnesses, with 88 from Maharashtra, causing inconvenience to the accused and witnesses traveling to Delhi for trial. 2. The Respondent opposed the transfer, citing the husband's posting in Delhi during the check period as justification for filing the chargesheet there. However, it was acknowledged that 88 out of 92 witnesses were from Maharashtra, supporting the petitioners' claim of inconvenience in attending court proceedings in Delhi. 3. The Supreme Court, considering the provisions of Section 406 CrPC, emphasized the need to meet the ends of justice in deciding on the transfer of cases. The Court noted the inconvenience faced by the accused and witnesses due to the trial being Delhi-centric, despite most witnesses being from Maharashtra. 4. The Court referred to previous judgments highlighting the importance of fairness in trials and the relevance of convenience of parties and witnesses in transfer petitions. It was emphasized that the convenience of all stakeholders, including the prosecution, accused, and witnesses, should be considered in deciding on transfers for the fair and impartial dispensation of justice. 5. Considering the circumstances of the case, including the location of witnesses and the accused, the Court allowed the petition and transferred Criminal Case No. 45 of 2008 from the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini Courts, New Delhi to the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Court of Sessions at Thane, Maharashtra, for expeditious disposal of the trial and convenience of all parties involved.
|
