Mr. H.D. Mahalingaiah vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—In this petition filed u/s 407 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner, the sole accused in Spl. CC. No. 100/10 on the file of Special Court at Koppal registered for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) r/w. Section 13(21) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has sought for transfer of the said case to the Special Court at Tumkur inter alia on the ground that the prosecution has been launched at Koppal only on the premise that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was serving as Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat, Koppal and by the date of filing the Final Report, petitioner had been transferred from Koppal to Madhugiri, where he is presently working as executive officer of the Taluk Panchayat and that the assets said to have acquired by the petitioner alleged to be disproportionate to his known source of income are all situated in the jurisdiction of Special Court at Tumkur and that out of 130 charge sheet witnesses 69 witnesses are from Tumkur and Tumkur District, whereas hardly 31 of them are from Koppal District, 15 witnesses are from Bangalore and the remaining are from other places. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has contended that in the interest of justice, the trial of the case requires to be transferred to Special Court at Tumkur, which would be more convenient to the prosecution witnesses also and at the same time it would be convenient for the petitioner to regularly attend the case on all hearing dates. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mrudul M. Damle and Another Vs. C. B.I., New Delhi, The respondent-Lokayukta police have opposed the petition inter alia on the ground that though the majority of the witnesses are from Tumkur, Tumkur District and other places, the prosecution agency would take necessary steps to get the presence of the witnesses before the Court and therefore, there are no justifiable grounds to order transfer of the case to the Court at Tumkur.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides.

The Apex Court in Mrudul M Damle''s case referred to supra, after referring to various decisions on the point and in particular to the decision in the case of Abdul Nazar Madani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, has held that while dealing with the prayer for transfer of the criminal case from one Court to another the importance of fairness of a trial is required to be taken note of and it is further observed that no universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case, convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial. The Court has further observed that the convenience of the parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioners alone who approached the Court on misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society. Having regard to the fact of that case that out of 92 charge sheet witnesses, 88 are from outside Delhi and from different places in Maharashtra and since the subject matter was not Delhi centric, the Apex court held that trial in Rohini Court at Delhi would be inconvenient not only to the accused persons but also to all the witnesses cited by the prosecution. In that view of the matter, the Apex Court ordered transfer of the matter from Delhi to the Sessions Court at Thane in Maharashtra.

In the case on hand, petitioner is the sole accused in the case. 69 out of 130 charge sheet witnesses are from Tumkur and Tumkur District. 15 witnesses are from neighboring Bangalore and Bangalore District. The petitioner is presently working as Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat, Madhugiri in ''Tumkur District. The assets alleged to have been acquired by the petitioner, which is stated to be disproportionate to his known sources of income are all situated in Tumkur District. The case put forth by the prosecution also appears to be not Koppal centric. Having regard to the above facts, the trial of the case at Koppal would not be convenient to the petitioner as well as the majority of the witnesses. The majority of the prosecution witnesses are required to travel from Bangalore and Tumkur District to Koppal, for which the exchequer is required to meet the expenses. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds for ordering transfer of the case from Koppal to Tumkur. In this view of the matter, petition is allowed. The prosecution initiated by the respondent-Lokayukta Police against the petitioner, which is pending in Spl. C.c. No. 100/10 on the file of District Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Koppal is ordered to be transferred to the District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Tumkur for trial in accordance with law. Registry to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned.