In absence of allegation of pre-existing bias, power of transfer of case u/s 407 of CrPC should normally not be invoked: Madhya Pradesh HC

Read Judgment: Manoj Parmar vs. Union of India and Others 

Pankaj Bajpai

Bhopal, December 31, 2021: The Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has opined that the discretionary power of transfer of a case should normally not be invoked u/s 407 of CrPC, in absence of an allegation of “pre-existing bias”

A Division Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that a litigant cannot choose a Bench of his choice, and it is only an exceptional circumstances, where the existence of “bias” or “likelihood of bias” when apparent on the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court can invoke its discretionary power u/s 407 of CrPC. 

Going by the background of the case, on the basis of a complaint lodged by Senior Branch Manager, Shri Rajendra Mohan Nayak of Punjab National Bank, Branch Astha District Sehore, an FIR was registered for offence punishable u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 & 120-B of IPC, on the allegations that Manoj Parmar (Applicant) in connivance with certain officials of the Bank had dishonestly and fraudulently obtained the loan which has resulted in causing loss to the public exchequer.

After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and other accused persons and the trial was pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Astha District. Another FIR was also registered against the applicant and other accused persons by the Police Station CBI, ACB Bhopal for offence punishable u/s 120-B r/w/s 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and u/s 13(1)(d) r/w/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 

The Second FIR was registered on the basis of written complaint of Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, alleging that M.P. Karari, the then Senior Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Astha Branch District Sehore by abusing his official position, entered into criminal conspiracy with the present applicant, who is proprietor of M/s. Parmar Machinery and Krishi Seva Kendra Astha and with other accused persons and in pursuance thereof, they dishonestly and fraudulently sanctioned and disbursed 18 loans accounts on the basis of forged documents, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.6.20 Crore, beside availing subsidy amounting to Rs.32.50 Lacs. 

After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by the CBI and the said case was pending before the Special Court. 

After considering the arguments, the Division Bench found from a careful reading of Section 407 of CrPC that the assurance of fair trial is the main criteria for exercise of power u/s 407 of CrPC. 

In the present case, the applicant has mainly stated that the allegations in both the trials are almost the same and, therefore, the trial of both the cases should take place before one Bench, added the High Court Division Bench. 

Therefore, observing that there is no legal or valid ground so as to exercise power u/s 407 of Cr.P.C. and in absence thereto, the High Court declined the prayer of the applicant for transfer of his case.