9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (11) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asthan Armed Constabulary. He avers that he took over as Commandant on January 7, 1963 but was placed under suspension the same day and a case was registered on January 12, 1963 which has resulted in the present prosecution against him. The petitioner apprehends for reasons to be stated presently that he is not likely to get a fair, just and impartial trial in the State of Rajasthan owing to the hostility and influence of the then Law Minister who was also Minister incharge of Home Department of the State, the Additional Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corruption, and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, Jaipur. In support of his petition he has referred to many incidents and filed many documents. He has sworn an affidavit that he entertains an apprehension that these persons would interfere with the trial of the case in the State of Rajasthan and that a transfer of the case outside the State is in the interest of justice. The State Government has opposed the application strenu. ously and has questioned the jurisdiction of this Court to transfer under the powers conferred on it by s.. 527 Code of Criminal Procedure a case made over by the Government of the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the State Government as well as Mr. Sharma. The latter was present in Court and expressed regret for what had. happened. We accepted the appology and do not, therefore,feel called upon to consider the plea of justification which, in any event, is not a plea heard in bar when contempt is clear and manifest. There could be no question in the present case that by charging the petitioner with proceedings of a different kind there was, if not direct, at least indirect pressure brought upon him in the prosecution of his petition for. transfer. Of this we would have taken serious note be- cause it was likely to have hampered the petitioner in prosecuting his petition freely before this Court and would have resulted in obstruction of administration of justice. If the petitioner was guilty of any lapse under the Services (Conduct) Rules or even guilty of an offence the action to which he would be otherwise subject could wait till the present proceedings had terminated and there was really no reason to hurry with a charge against the petitioner which charge would have put him under duress of some kind. Such a course of action 'is to be deprecated and we are glad to note that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by increasing the punishment in s. 165 and by inserting S. 165A which provides for punishment for abetment of offences defined in ss. 161 and 165. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act make some amendments in s. 164 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These four sections have been repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1957 as they were no longer necessary. The sections which we have to consider are ss. 6, 7 and 8 of the Act. Section 6 confers power on the State Government to appoint special Judges for the trial of certain offences. The parts relevant to our purpose read "6. Power to appoint special judges. (1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint as many special Judges as may be necessary for such area, or areas as may be specified in the notification to try the following offences, namely :- (a) an offence punishable under section 161, section 162, section 163, section 164, section 165, or section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), or sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (11 of 1947) (b) Any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n offence specified in sub-section (1) of s. 6 must be by a special Judge only but that condition can be fully met by transferring the case to another special Judge. Indeed section 527 itself contemplates that the transfer should be to a court of equal or superior jurisdiction and we presume that there are special Judges in every State of India. The selection of a special Judge causes no difficulty. It is the second condition which is really pleaded in bar. The provision of sub-section (2) of s. 7 is that an offence shall be tried by the special Judge for the area within which it is committed. This condition, if literaly understood would lead to the conclusion that a case once made over to a special Judge in an area where there is no other special Judge, cannot be transferred at all. This could hardly have been intended. If this, were so, the power to transfer a case intrastate under s. 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on a parity of reasoning, must also be lacking. But this Court in Ramchandra Prasad v. State of Bihar[1962] 2 S.C.R. 50) upheld the transfer of a case by the High Court which took it to a special Judge who had no jurisdiction in the area where the offence was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... result in taking the case out of the territory and the provisions of the Code which are preserved by the third sub- section of S. 8 must supervene to enable this to E be done and the second sub-section of s, 7 must yield. We do not consider that this creates any inconsistency because the territorial jurisdiction created by the second sub-section of s. 7 operates in a different sphere and under different circumstances. Inconsistency can only be found if two provisions of law apply in identical circumstances and create contradictions. Such a situation does not arise F when either this Court or the High Court exercises its powers of transfer. We are accordingly of the opinion that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction and power under s. 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can transfer a case from a special Judge subordinate to one High Court to another special Judge subordinate to another High Court. This brings us to the question of the merits of the petition. The petitioner is being prosecuted for offences under s. 120B/161 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5(1)(a)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. His apprehension is that the case against him is H the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a possibility that the petitioner entertains an apprehension that certain persons are hostile to him but his apprehension that he will not receive justice in the State of Rajasthan is not in our opinion reasonable. All the facts which he has narrated bear upon past events in his official life. Nothing has been said which will show that there is in any manner an interference direct or indirect with the investigation of the offences alleged against him or the trial of the case before the special Judge, Bharatpur. A general feeling that some persons are hostile to the petitioner is not sufficient. There must be material from which it can be inferred that the persons who are so hostile are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or indirectly with the course of justice. Of this there is no trace either in his petition or in the arguments which were advanced before us. Nor does the petitioner allege anything against the special Judge who is trying the case. In this view of the matter we decline to order trans- fer of the case from the special Judge, Bharatpur. The petition accordingly fails and will be dismissed.
Petition dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
