RAM CHANDER SINGH SAGAR AND ANR. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: V. R. Krishna Iyer
Jaswant Singh
Judgment Date: 1978-01-23
Court Decision / Holding: Petition dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ram Chander Singh Sagar
Anr.

Respondents

State of Tamil Nadu
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• D. P. Bhandare
• N. S. Das Bahl

Counsels for Respondents

• V. P. Rama (Adv. Genl. Tamil Nadu)
• A. V. Rangam

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Supreme Court clarifies the scope of its authority under Section 406 CrPC in the context of transferring criminal matters, and distinguishes between transferring cases or appeals and transferring investigations. Petitioners Ram Chander Singh Sagar and another sought an order under Section 406 read with Order XXXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, during the investigation stage, to transfer the case to another court. The Court begins by affirming that Section 406 empowers it to transfer a case or an appeal from one High Court or a court subordinate to a High Court to another High Court or to a subordinate court, but it expressly holds that this power does not extend to transferring investigations from one police station to another merely because the first information or remand report is forwarded to a court. The petition, the Court notes, arises in a situation where there is no pending case before any court. Therefore, there is nothing for 406 to transfer in the absence of a live matter. The Court observes that if the petitioners face travel or harassment during the investigation, they may seek appropriate relief from the court directing appearance, rather than invoking 406. Thus, the petition is dismissed, reinforcing that justice should be served without harassing the parties; the order emphasizes the proper channels for redress during investigation and travel-related concerns.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 406Order XXXVI, Supreme Court Rules, 1966

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that Section 406 empowers the Court to transfer a case or appeal from one High Court or a court subordinate to another; they sought a transfer while the matter was at the investigation stage; they contended for relief to avoid long travel and harassment and to place the matter in a more convenient forum. They relied on the intended use of s. 406 to secure a transfer during investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that there was no case pending before any Court capable of transfer; the counter affidavit from the State of Tamil Nadu stated that no case was before a court to transfer. They argued that Section 406 cannot be used to transfer investigations, and that justice requires dismissing the petition, with any necessary relief sought through proper channels if a matter is later pending.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A **B** ### **c** **D** E 604 RAM CHANDER SINGH SAGAR AND ANR. _v._ STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. _January_ 23. 1978 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND }ASWANT SINGH, JJ.] _**Power of Supreme Court**_ _**to**_ _**transfer criminal**_ _**cases-Scope**_ _**of**_ _**S.**_ **406** _**of**_ _Criminal Procedure Code_ _(Act_ _IL_ _of_ 1974), 1973 (1898 _<:ode_ S. 527) _r/w_ _Order_ _XXXVi_ _S,_ C. _Rules_ 1966. **1'he Petitioners moved** **this** **Court** **u/s** **406** **Crl.** **P.** **C.,** **1973** **r/w** **Order** **XX.XVI Supreme Court Rules, 1966, when** **their** **matter** **was** **at** **the** **1nvest1gauon** **stage itself for an order** **of** **transfer** **of** **the case to some other court.** **Dis1nissing** **the** **petition for** tran~fer, **the** **Court** **HELD** **:** _**The**_ _**Code of**_ _**Crin1i11al**_ _**Procedure**_ _**clolhes**_ _**the**_ _**Supre1ne**_ _**(,'ourt**_ _**with**_ **power** **u/s** **406 to transfer a case for appeal from one High Court or a Court** **subordinate to** **one** **High** **Court** **to** **another** **High** **Court or to a Court subordinate** **thereto, but not with the power to transfer investigations from one police station** **to another in the country simply because the tirst information or a remand** **report** **is** **forwarded to a Court.** **1o come to this Court directly seeking an order** **ot** **transfer in such a case** **is** **travelling along the wrong street.** **If** **justice** **IS** **denied, there are other redresses, not** **u/s** **406.** **[604 F-lr 605 A]** ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 40 of 1977. Under Section 4,Q6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. _D._ _P._ _Bhandare_ and _N._ _S._ _Das_ Bahl for 'the Petitioners. _V._ _P._ _Rama, Adv. Genl. Tamil Nadu_ and _A._ _V. Rangam_ for the Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered by •• _(_ { _)_ F KRISHNA IYER, J.-The Code of Criminal Procedure clothes this Court with power under s. 406 to transfer a case or appeal from one High Court or a Court subordinate to one High Court to another High Court or to a Court subordinate thereto. But it does not clothe this Court with the power to transfer investigations from one police station to another in the country simply because the first information or a G remand report is forwarded to a Court. The application before us stems from a misconception about the scope of s. 406. There is as yet no case pending before any Court as has been made clear in the counter affidavit of the State of Tamil Nadu. In the light of this counter affidavit, nothing can be done except to dismiss this petition. If the petitioners are being directed to appeal in a far-off Court **H** during investigatory stage it is for them to move that Court for appropriate orders so that _they. may not be tor~ent~d J;iY lon!l travel or #### otherwise teased by 1ud1cial process. [f 1ust1ce is denied \here ve _)_ _, ## _j_ ) #, RAM CHANDER _v._ TAMIL NADU _(Krishna Iyer,_ _J.)_ 60 5 .other redresses, not under s. 406, though it is unfortunate that the peti.tioners have not chosen to move that court to be absolved from appear.ance until necessitated by the circumstances or the progress of the investigation. To come to this Court directly seeking an order of transfer is travelling along the wrong street. We are sure that if the second petitioner is ailing, as is represented, and this fact is brought to the notice of the Court which has directed her appearance, just orders will be passed in case there is veracity behind the representation. We need hardly say courts should use their processes to the purpose of ;advancing justice, not to harass parties. Anyway, so far as the petition for transfer is concerned, to borrow a cliche, the less said the better and so we dismiss it. :S.R. _Petition_ _dismissed._ A B