Harihar Prasad Sinha vs The State of Jharkhand

Jaya Roy, J.—This transfer petition u/s 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for transfer of the Case i.e. R.C. 23(A)/1993(R) pending before the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad to Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier the Petitioner had filed a Transfer Petition No. 01 of 2006 in the High Court for the same relief on the ground that he was suffering from Osteo Arthritis. The said petition was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2006 by this Court holding that the said ground is not a reasonable ground for transfer of the case from one district to another.

Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. P.P.N. Roy appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the prosecution against the Petitioner has been initiated on the basis of the information given by the then Superintendent of Police C.B.I./S.P.E. Division Ranchi alleging in the F.I.R. that the Petitioner who was posted as Executive Director, B & K Kargali area of C.C.L. functioned in the different capacities in the C.C.L. of Coal India Ltd. during the period from June, 1980 to November, 1993 and acquired assets which are disproportionate to his known source of income which was not satisfactorily accounted for by the Petitioner.

The C.B.I., after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the Petitioner on 07.09.1999. Thereafter, the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi took cognizance on 28.06.2000 and the case was pending for supply of police papers to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that after supply of the police papers, the case was pending for hearing on the point of charge before the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi but in the meantime the said case was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad on 27.09.2003. It appears from the order passed by the Special Judge that as per FAX-0651-48111 collection XIX (16) dated 10.09.2003 of the High Court, the record was received in the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad where it is now pending for trial.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in the charge-sheet there are altogether 95 witnesses out of whom 37 witnesses belong to Ranchi. Some witnesses are said to be of different places. In this background, it is submitted that if the case is transferred to Ranchi, it will be very helpful and easier for the prosecution to procure the attendance of the witnesses and it will also be in the interest of the witnesses.

In this regard, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has cited a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Mr. A.K.K. Nambiar and Others Vs. Shri Desraj, . In that case four cases were lodged against the Petitioner and out of which three cases were pending in the Court of Hyderabad and one of the them was pending in Bombay. The cases were of similar nature. Therefore, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the one which is pending at Bombay should be transferred to Hyderabad Court.

Learned Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. Mr. M. Khan submits that the instant case was earlier pending before the Court of C.B.I., Ranchi and thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Dhanbad in 2003. It appears that the Petitioner did not challenge the said order nor filed any petition before this Court for transfer of the same except the Transfer Petition No. 01 of 2006 which has already been dismissed by the High Court, as stated earlier, which was filed on the ground that the Petitioner was suffering from Osteo Arthritis.

Learned Counsel further submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted in September, 1999 and cognizance has been taken in June, 2000. So it is obvious that the Petitioner had full knowledge about the number of witnesses named in the charge-sheet, but he never filed any transfer petition till 2010. In this view of the matter, the instant petition is nothing but a tactic to delay the disposal of the case. He further contends that the aforesaid decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court cited by the Petitioner is not applicable in this case as in the said case ground of transfer was that four cases were initiated, more or less, on the same allegation, and amongst them since three were pending at Hyderabad and the one which was pending at Bombay, was ordered to be transferred to the Court at Hyderabad.

From the record, I find that all the prosecution witnesses are of Ranchi and it is for the State to bear the cost of conveyance of the witnesses. Moreover, the prosecution has not filed any application for transfer of the case. Therefore, the Petitioner is not, in any way, concerned with this aspect of the matter.

In the case of Baljit Singh and Another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, Hon''ble Apex Court has held that:

...The normal course of things should not have been lightly interfered with and the case should have been allowed to be tried by the Court which had territorial jurisdiction.

The Petitioner has mentioned in his earlier Transfer Petition No. 01 of 2006 that earlier the case was pending at Ranchi but in 2003 it was transferred to Dhanbad because of jurisdiction. It is, therefore, quite clear that jurisdiction of the Court to try this case is admittedly at Dhanbad. The prosecution has not filed any application for transfer of the case from Dhanbad to Ranchi. Therefore, I do not find any reason as to why the Petitioner, after expiry of such a long time, has filed this transfer petition on the ground that 37 prosecution witnesses are of Ranchi and therefore it should be tried at Ranchi.

Considering all these aspects of the matter as discussed above, I do not find any reason to transfer this case again from Dhanbad Court to Ranchi. This transfer petition is accordingly dismissed. As the case is of the year 1993, the Court concerned at Dhanbad is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible by taking all possible measures.