S.406 CrPC| Appeal In Case Transferred To Sessions Court In Another State Lies Before HC Of Transferee State & Not Transferor State: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that once in exercise of its powers under Section 406 CrPC the Supreme Court transfers a case from the subordinate criminal court in one state to a subordinate criminal court in another state, any appeal against an order in the said case shall lie before the High Court in the transferee High Court. The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Om Prakash...
The Allahabad High Court has held that once in exercise of its powers under Section 406 CrPC the Supreme Court transfers a case from the subordinate criminal court in one state to a subordinate criminal court in another state, any appeal against an order in the said case shall lie before the High Court in the transferee High Court.
The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Om Prakash Tripathi made this observation while dealing with a criminal appeal, wherein a preliminary objection was raised by the CBI that the appeal is not entertainable before Allahabad High Court as the cause of action arose in Rajasthan.
Noting that the trial was transferred to a local Court in UP under Section 406 CrPC, the Court observed,
"the appeal against the judgment and sentence in the Sessions case would be maintainable before the High Court of the transferee State (Uttar Pradesh) and not that of the transferor State (Rajasthan)."
In the instant case, a chargesheet was filed in the Special Court in Rajasthan which was later transferred to the Mathura Sessions Court via order of the Supreme Court. Later on, in the instant matter, the charges were framed by the Mathura Court followed by the trial, and judgement was given and hence the present appeal was filed.
Appellant
The counsel for the Appellant has contended that submissions made by the Respondents were misconceived as the case which was primarily registered in Rajasthan was transferred to CBI and followed by the transfer of trial to Mathura by the order of the Supreme Court. He further stated that appellants were convicted by the Sessions Court, Mathura and, thus the appeal would lie in the High Court of Allahabad rather than the High Court of Rajasthan.
The counsel relied on the case of Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P [2008 (7) ADJ 567 (DB)], wherein, the incident of crime took place in District Ghaziabad and the trial was transferred from Ghaziabad to Tees Hazari Court, New Delhi. The Court was of the opinion that the appeal against the order of conviction and sentence was cognizable by Delhi High Court.
Respondent
The counsel for the Respondent – CBI stated that the cause of action/ incident originally took place in Rajasthan and thus the Rajasthan High Court would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the criminal appeal.
The counsel relied on the judgement of Paritosh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others [2014 (2) ALJ 403], wherein, it was held that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against an order passed by Special Judge, CBI, at Lucknow, is entertainable in Allahabad High Court.
Judgement
Further, for this purpose, the court relied upon the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal alias Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2008) 10 SCC 180], where it was held that once the case is transferred as per Section 406 Cr.P.C. to another State, the transferor State no longer has control over the prosecution to be conducted in a court situated in a different State to which the case has been transferred.
The bench also relied on the judgement of K. Anbazhagan v. State of Karnataka and others [(2015) 6 SCC 158] where the same was observed as in the earlier case.
In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court held that the appeal against the judgment and sentence in the Sessions case would be maintainable before the High Court of the transferee State (Uttar Pradesh) and not that of the transferor State (Rajasthan).
The court also rejected the Preliminary objection raised by respondent-CBI regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the appeal and held that the present appeal is maintainable before Allahabad High Court.
It clarified that the reliance placed on Paritosh Kumar (supra) is misconceived for the reason facts and proposition of law of the said case is not similar to the case in hand. Present case relates to transfer of trial from one State to another by the Supreme Court in exercise of power under Section 406 of CrPC.
Case Title: Virendra Singh vs State Of U.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Case No. : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2101 of 2020