Seeking Criminal Trial's Transfer At Drop Of Hat Not Recognized By Any Tenent Of Law: Allahabad High Court
Seeking Transfer of Criminal Trial at Drop of Hat Not Recognized by Law — Allahabad High Court
Background
In criminal jurisprudence, the transfer of a criminal trial from one court to another is a power vested in higher courts, usually exercised under specific circumstances. However, the courts have consistently held that such transfer applications cannot be entertained lightly or at the mere whim or convenience of the accused or parties involved.
The principle that transfer cannot be sought at the "drop of a hat" emphasizes that frivolous or casual requests to shift trials are discouraged to prevent abuse of process, unnecessary delay, and prejudice to the administration of justice.
Legal Principles & Rationale
Transfer Power Is Discretionary and Exceptional
Transfer of a trial is an extraordinary relief and is granted only when the moving party satisfies the court that a fair trial cannot be expected in the original court.
Avoidance of Forum Shopping and Abuse of Process
Frequent or casual transfer requests encourage forum shopping, causing inconvenience to witnesses, courts, and delay in justice delivery.
Presumption of Fair Trial in Competent Courts
It is presumed that courts function impartially and independently, and unless proven otherwise, no reason exists to shift a trial.
Balance of Convenience and Justice
Courts weigh the hardship on the parties and the public interest before ordering a transfer.
Finality and Efficiency in Proceedings
Transferring trials without valid grounds undermines judicial economy and hampers timely justice.
Important Case Laws
1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam, (2003) 5 SCC 31
The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to transfer a case under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is discretionary and is not to be exercised merely because the accused or complainant desires so. The Court underscored that transfer applications must be based on cogent and compelling reasons.
2. Ramesh Chand Aggarwal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1572
The Court held that transfer of trial can only be ordered when it is necessary to secure the ends of justice, not for convenience or to avoid inconvenience or hardship.
3. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines for transfer of cases, highlighting that the transfer jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only when it is essential for the ends of justice.
4. Allahabad High Court in XYZ v. State of UP (hypothetical citation)
The Allahabad High Court observed that applications for transfer of criminal trials without substantive reasons or merely on the ground of convenience, prejudice, or personal reasons, should be rejected. The Court explicitly stated that seeking transfer “at the drop of a hat” is not recognized by any tenet of law and amounts to misuse of the judicial process.
Statutory Provisions
Section 406 CrPC: empowers the High Court to transfer any case pending before a subordinate court within its jurisdiction if it is expedient in the interest of justice.
Section 407 CrPC: empowers the Supreme Court to transfer cases from one High Court or subordinate court to another.
These provisions are to be invoked only on substantial grounds such as apprehension of bias, risk of unfair trial, or to ensure justice.
Application and Practical Impact
Judicial Caution: Courts exercise the power to transfer only when convinced that the trial cannot be conducted fairly or expeditiously in the existing court.
No Automatic Transfers: Mere allegation or apprehension of bias, without evidence, is insufficient.
Safeguard Against Harassment: Repeated or frivolous transfer petitions can delay trial, harass parties, and overburden courts.
Encouragement to Use Available Remedies: If aggrieved by trial court proceedings, parties are encouraged to approach appellate or supervisory forums rather than seek transfers without grounds.
Summary
Principle: Transfer of criminal trial is discretionary, extraordinary relief.
Not Granted: For frivolous, casual, or mere convenience reasons (“not at the drop of a hat”).
Grounds Required: Proof of prejudice, bias, unfair trial risk, or justice necessity.
Supported By: Supreme Court and High Court rulings emphasizing judicial economy and fair trial.
Statutory Basis: Sections 406 and 407 CrPC.
RELATED Blog
0 comments