Appeal Chance Is Lost When Case Is Transferred From Magistrate To Sessions Court, Says Supreme Court While Hearing Karti Chidambaram's Plea

The Supreme Court on Thursday heard an appeal against Madras High Court's judgement dismissing the petitions filed by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram and his wife Srinidhi to quash two criminal complaints under the Income Tax Act and the trial proceedings in the Special Courts for MPs/MLAs. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M Trivedi.  

At the outset, the petitioner submitted that the Madras High Court had misconstrued the Supreme Court's order in the Ashwini Upadhyay case regarding Special Courts for trial of cases against MPs/MLAs. He added that Supreme Court has subsequently clarified that the order for trial in Special Courts would not mean that cases triable by Magistrates are not to be transferred to Sessions Courts.

"The matter was transferred from the Magistrates Court to the Sessions Court. The High Court noted all these arguments, accepted all these arguments and then said that since no prejudice is being caused, therefore, we will continue with the proceedings before the sessions court. The test of prejudice is not relevant where there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction. But more importantly, your lordships have clarified this in Ashwini Upadhyay, subsequent to this judgement, where a similar situation arose in UP. You lordships have made it abundantly clear that those cases which are magistrate triable are not to be transferred to the sessions court and the Supreme Court never intended to confer jurisdiction contrary to the statutes."

Per contra, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju stated that he wished to file a counter. He further stated that Section 407 of CrPC provides that magistrate triable cases can be transferred to sessions court. To this, the CJI remarked that a person loses a chance of appeal when his case is transferred from Magistrate's court to the Sessions Court.

CJI remarked–

"It can be transferred in your normal case. No doubt about it. But you know, imagine, this is Antulay kind of issue(AR Antulay vs RS Naik case). Somebody who has been taken from magistrate and planted in a, say, special court, he loses on a chance." 

ASG Raju responded that in such a scenario all the said person lost was a forum. CJI Lalit said–

"Then the question whether you have jurisdiction or not is not the point. You're doing it as a result of an order passed by this court. Now the subsequent order passed by this court has explained the position and said that we never meant it that way, that even the magistrate triable cases which are presently pending in the courts of magistrates must also get transferred to special court. So one can do it consciously in a given case."

The bench granted two weeks time to ASG SV Raju to put in the affidavit in response. The matter has been listed in the first week of December 2022 before appropriate bench next.

Background

The Madras High Court had dismissed the petitions in question on 12 May 2020. Justice M. Sundar had observed that the issues raised in the criminal complaints were matters for trial and no ground had been made out for quashing the same.

The judgment had elaborately dealt with the plea challenging transfer of two criminal cases from EO court to Sessions Court. The Court dealt with the contention that transferee court does not have original jurisdiction, that only one of the petitioners has become M.P, that he was also neither a sitting nor former M.P/M.L.A on the date of complaint and that petitioners have been deprived of one tier of remedy by transfer from EO Court to Sessions Court. In this regard, the judge observed:

"With regard to standing trial in a Magistrate Court and standing trial in a Sessions Court, the lone difference projected before this Court pertains to further revision under section 397 Cr.P.C post appeal against conviction, if that be so. As the law is clear that revision is not a right unlike an appeal, this lone difference being canvassed as a ground by petitioners gets obliterated. The result is, in the cases on hand, as far as petitioners are concerned, there is no difference in standing trial in a Magistrate Court and standing trial in Sessions Court."

The court also said that no prejudice has been demonstrated by Karti and his wife owing to being asked to stand trial in a Sessions Court.

The Court observed that the Government should have designated more Metropolitan Magistrate Courts in Chennai, if the already designated II Metropolitan Magistrate Court is overburdened. The Court, thus, suggested the Government to designate one or more Metropolitan Magistrate/s in Chennai for trying criminal cases related to elected M.Ps/M.L.As, in accordance with the directives of Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case.

CASE TITLE: Karti Chidambaram v. Dy Director of Income Tax SLP(Crl) No. 5136/2020