In Cri. Transfer Petition Nos.333-348/2021-SC- Court can transfer cases u/s 406 CrPC to secure ends of justice and for fair trial: SC allows transfer petitions after considering common nature of allegations and pendency of proceedings in 4 States
Justice J.K. Maheshwari [09-09-2022]

Read Judgment: Ketan Kantilal Seth Vs State of Gujarat & Ors

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, September 10, 2022:  If the Court is satisfied that it is imperative to transfer the cases in the interest of justice or to secure ends of justice, then it may do so, the Supreme Court has observed.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari allowed the instant transfer petitions  by observing the common nature of allegations raised against the petitioner in all 14 FIRs and criminal proceedings emanating therefrom which were  yet pending before respective Trial Courts in four States.

In a nutshell, the prosecution story in majority of the cases revolved around one accused company namely M/s Home Trade Limited, which was alleged to be engaged in the business Stock, Securities, Brokering and Trading. The allegations against the petitioner herein and one Sanjay Hariram Agarwal were that they were the authorized signatories of the accused company and while acting in the capacity of Directors of the said accused company, they entered into several transactions dealing with the government securities   and   further   sold   the   said   securities   without   any authorization.   

Further,   it was  also      alleged   that   the government securities were not delivered within time and the money raised thereby was misappropriated by the accused persons including the petitioner. 

During the pendency of the instant petitions, applications for intervention were also filed on behalf of one applicant seeking permission to intervene on the grounds of being a ‘necessary’ and ‘proper’ party as stated in the application.  Before   adverting   to merits   of   the   transfer   petitions,   the application seeking intervention was taken up for disposal. 

The intervenor claimed to be an agriculturist who was dependent on financial aid provided by Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank Limited for his day today agricultural activities. It was  said Chairman of NDCCB, who lodged an FIR in 2002 against the petitioner and other accused persons alleging nondelivery of the government securities worth Rs. 125 crores which NDCCB purchased through the accused company in which the petitioner and other accused persons were directors. The petitioner also sought transfer of concerned trial in the instant transfer petitions. 

After hearing the contentions of the parties, the Court noted that the primary issue for consideration before this Court was whether the criminal cases pending before different   Trial Courts in  four  States can be transferred to one Trial Court in one State and if transfer of case of one of the criminal cases which is at the final stage of trial before the concerned   Court   in   Nagpur,   can   be   directed   to   be transferred at such belated stage. 

“Section 406   deals   with   the power   of the Supreme   Court to   transfer   the cases. The Court can exercise such power for fair trial and to secure   the   ends   of   justice.   The   language   impliedly   left   the transfer of the cases on the discretion of the Court. If the Court is satisfied that it is imperative to transfer the cases in the interest of justice or to secure ends of justice,  then it may do so”, the Court  further noted. 

In the instant case, it was  not in dispute that since 2002, multiple FIRs across four States namely, Gujarat, Maharashtra, New Delhi and West Bengal were  filed against petitioner and   other   accused   persons   containing   broad   and   common allegations   pertaining to act done in collusion by accused persons to defraud the complainants and misappropriate the money raised thereby while dealing/trading in government securities in the name of accused company M/s Home Trade Limited. 

The State in its counter affidavit  stated that during investigation, the accused  Company was found not to be eligible to deal in transactions relating to government securities, whereas, petitioner and other accused persons namely Sanjay Hariram Agarwal were acting as Directors and authorized signatories of the accused Company. From a bare perusal of the facts and FIRs, it was seen that there was commonality   of   facts   in   each   FIR   and   that   most   of   the transactions were taken place in Mumbai. Further, the FIRs mainly had petitioner and Sanjay Hariram Agarwal as common accused persons. 

Thus, considering  the common nature of allegations and pendency of proceedings, the Court opined that to meet the ends of justice and fair trial, the transfer petitions deserved to be allowed.