When Can Criminal Trial Be Transferred From One State Under S.406 CrPC? Supreme Court Explains

While observing today that mere inconvenience faced by the accused to appear for a trial cannot be ground to transfer proceedings under Section 406 (Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Section 447 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), the Supreme Court stated that an order of the transfer of the trial cannot be passed as a matter of routine.

"Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not the power under Section 406 Cr.P.C should be exercised, yet it is manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine and more particularly on the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial."

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan pronounced the judgment in a batch of transfer petitions seeking the transfer of a trial from Coimbatore to Chandigarh for a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

While holding that this was not a fit case for the transfer of trial in the 'expedient for the justice' under Section 406 CrPC, the Court specified five broad instances where the trial could be transferred namely:

(i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution;

(ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant;

(iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses;

(iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability to hold a fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and

(v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the course of justice.

Case Details: M/S SHRI SENDHURAGRO AND OIL INDUSTRIES PRANAB PRAKASH v. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.|1503 T.P.(Crl.) No. 608/2024 and others