Petitioner challenged transfer of a part-heard sessions case by Principal District Judge without assigning reasons in impugned order. Court held transfer valid under Section 408 CrPC if interest of justice is served.
Order passed by Principal District Judge transferring the case set arialed
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
924criwp943.21-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
924 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.943 OF 2021 WITH
APPLN/2040/2021 IN WP/943/2021
Pralhad Kathalu Shejul,
Age 62 years, Occ; Agri, R/o; Varkheda, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
...Petitioner
VERSUS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Radikar Akshay S. APP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr.S.N.Morampalle Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. V.D.Sapkal i/by Mr.Bhosle Pratik A.
CORAM : SURENDRA P.TAVADE , J.
DATE : 07th September, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
learned counsel for both the parties, heard finally at the admission stage.
2
924criwp943.21-J
3
924criwp943.21-J
application respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had sought adjournment for preferring application for transfer of the case. The contents of the said application are also mentioned in the said transfer application. It is contended that the learned Principal District Judge, Jalna had obtained the say of prosecutor as well as the concerned Judge and thereafter in the interest of justice the case was transferred from the learned Additional Sessions Court No. 4 to the learned Additional Sessions Court No. 6. It is contended that to protect the interest of Judge as well as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the impugned order was passed, which is correct, legal and valid. There is no need to interfere with it.
“This Court has consistently laid down that every
4
924criwp943.21-J
judicial or/and quisi-judicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the appellate/revisionary Court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such conclusion. ( See.- State of Maharashtra Vs. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC 129, Jawahar Lal Singh Vs. Naresh Singh & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 222, State of U.P. Vs. Battan & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 607, Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 519 and State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568). ”
“We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court Avinash Chandra Vs. The States.
5
924criwp943.21-J
For the reasons given above our answer to the question referred to us is that the Sessions Judge is empowered under Section 408 Criminal Procedure Code to transfer a part heard case or appeal from a court of an Additional Sessions Judge to another competent Court within his sessions division if it is expedient in the interest of justice and the limitations imposed under Section 409 (2) Criminal Procedure Code are not applicable in exercise of the power of transfer conferred under Section 408 Criminal Procedure Code.”
6
924criwp943.21-J
of.
( SURENDRA P.TAVADE ) JUDGE
mahajansb/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether transfer of a part-heard criminal case from one Sessions Court to another without assigning reasons violates statutory mandate or principles of natural justice
Whether the Principal District Judge exercised discretion judiciously to transfer the case in the interest of justice
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Orissa and Ors. vs. Chandra NandiDistinguished¶28
State of Orissa and Ors. Vs. Chandra Nandi – Civil Appeal No. 10690 of 2017, Supreme Court of India
State of Maharashtra vs. Vithal Rao Pritirao ChawanReferred¶29
State of Maharashtra Vs. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC 129 · Who else cites this
Jawahar Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh & Ors.Referred¶29
Jawahar Lal Singh Vs. Naresh Singh & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 222 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. vs. Battan & Ors.Referred¶29
State of U.P. Vs. Battan & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 607 · Who else cites this
Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors.Referred¶29
Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 519 · Who else cites this
State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram LuharReferred¶29
State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568 · Who else cites this
Radhey Shyam vs. State of Uttar PradeshDistinguished¶33
Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – in Cri. Misc. (Transfer) Appln. No. 10069 of 1983
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Pralhad Kathalu Shejul
The State of Maharashtra
Nitin Bhaskar Khade
Rahul Bhaskar Khade
SURENDRA P.TAVADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
