Understanding Transfer of Criminal Cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Understanding Transfer of Criminal Cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section- 406-412)

Author: Mr. Mudit Saxena, Galgotias University


The judiciary has been the foremost foundation for assurance of any lawful debate. The judiciary has been a guard dog to watch out for the assembly and official specialists to control their self-assertive activities and to keep an eye on their exercises which might be either determined by their unusual or by any shrouded intrigue. The legal specialists are vested inside different courts and at numerous levels as esteemed to be legitimate by the separate High courts. The Indian judiciary has a gigantic indulgent weight on its shoulder of pendency.

Need for transfer of Cases: its objective

The whole judiciary is seen with most extreme regard and with a desire that the judiciary would do exceptionally reasonable and even-handed justice to the individual preceding them or arguing for authentic redressal of any grumbling of the complaint. The court ought to consistently keep up a reasonable view that court ought not exclusively reasonable justice yet the justice ought to be articulated in such a way, that an unmistakable message ought to be made to everybody that justice is made. The judiciary is the most blessed body to convey justice and has constantly kept up a severe view with respect to reasonableness in trail methods and trail decency. So as to secure the notoriety of the courts and keep up the high request of good norms between the individuals from judiciary the code of Criminal Procedure and the common method code have enough sensible grounds to move cases starting with one court then onto the next court.

The principle goal of conveying justice or to choose an issue is to address an open estimation in spite of the fact that there are different arrangements in regards to the request. Yet, such practices would give colossal weight on the instrument of the judiciary and the judiciary would additionally be troubled with more pendency and deferred justice to all which may subsequently make more dispassion and distress about legal procedures. So to address all such consuming issues the resolutions as of now gives certain arrangements in regards to the exchange of cases starting with one court of the trail then onto the next court of the trail.

Grounds for Transfer of Cases

The grounds on which a case could be moved starting with one court then onto the next court are as follows:

To meet ends of Justice: It is the most extreme obligation of the court to take every such measure to get together the parts of the bargains to articulate the judgment which ought to likewise send a decent message in the general public that justice was not exclusively done it was finished with an effect that apparently justice is finished. The court is the most trusted and consecrated foundation. Furthermore, every individual holds a high relative position and regard for court and its choices. So the courts have an additional ethical commitment to keeping the soul of trust and certainty alive inside this apparatus. This ground to meet the parts of the bargains a vide implications it could be effectively comprehended that this authority would have high degrees of optional forces, which could be utilized as per the authentic quantum to give justice to all the subject disputants. The genuine framework of each trail climate common or criminal procedures is very extraordinary so as to learn a pre-overseen circumstance for managing may not guarantee a reasonable preliminary or may even wind up making hopeless misfortune the enthusiasm of the defendants. Consequently, the court has been vested with such optional power to decide such inquiry in regards to the move of court.

According to the request report of any unrivalled legal official, for example, any Chief legal justice or any meetings judge the path must not be led by a specific justice or some other official such a report will likewise be regarded to be a legitimate ground for such exchange of a case starting with one court then onto the next. The path court considers it fit to be moved from its domain or the assurance of the path may include such generous inquiry of law. Deciding significant inquiry of law far over its purview would render the total path unprofitable. The court has a restricted locale over the topic of the contest in such constrained or shared juridical issue the court attempting the issue will have the freedom to move the case to the court which has capable ward to attempt that issue decisively so the total path couldn’t be fizzled in view of the absence of complete purview.

Common impact between the gathering and another legal official. The chance of debasement is no more interesting to the legal club. In such cases to keep away from the disappointment of enthusiasm of the genuine wronged party between the prosecutors, the court gives sensible chance to the gathering which may have such trepidation. The legal official being locked in or associated with the suit by a few or the other. In such a situation the defendant parties have total opportunity to move toward the experts for staying away from any impact of intrigue when promoted through any described people. The legal official might be made as a witness. In the event that any legal individual has been made as an observer to any path, this surfaces the finish of the capacity of that individual to direct the path. Such activities may attach a break of customary judiciousness of reasonable path and may indict the enthusiasm of justice.

At the point when the court or any legal authority is working in repudiation to the standards of normal justice. Any if such a break when answered to the position keeps on happening the distressed party would be allowed to take cover for leaning toward the move of case. Any shared unsettling influence or dishonest connection between the legal advisor and the legal official may likewise favour utilization of move of the case starting with one court then onto the next.

Transfer of Criminal Cases under Cr. P. C.

  • Section 406 Cr. P. C 1973 – Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals:

The Supreme Court is supplied with the broadest discretional ability to make any such solicitation to move a specific case or advance or any issue lying pending under the attentive gaze of one high court to another high court to get together the completion of equity and satisfy the standard of sensible equity. The application to move such a case starting with one High court then onto the next high court would be moved by any individual who is under trepidation of any unreasonable activity or he may not discover legitimate justice for him or Attorney General of India. The arrangement made under area 406 of Cr. P. C significantly depends upon the tact of the Supreme Court. The candidate isn’t under any commitment to build up decisively that without this exchange the enthusiasm of justice in regards to him would come up short. The candidate should sensibly validate his disputes with respect to the application. The Supreme Court isn’t just vested with the power to move documents structure one High court to another High Court. The Supreme Court likewise has power to the exchange of any case starting with one court then onto the next court which is in subjection to the Supreme Court. Any complaint whenever emerged by the court under which the issue is lying pending. Despite the fact that the path court may guarantee the Supreme Court about keeping up the guideline of reasonable and value, yet the Supreme Court would take all sensible measure to move that case to some other court which might be either to the court of the same skill of might be court lower or higher competence.

  • Section 407. Cr. P. C 1973- Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals.

The high court is similarly enriched with the near pros to move a case from one court of its sub-law to another court of its sub-rule or the high court may even the endeavour the case without any other individual. The ground on which an application to move the case could be made to the high court are:

  • At the moment that the court could reasonably make sure that the respectability of the way would be one-sided by the way at whatever point coordinated with a comparable court that has been endeavoring the case starting at now.
  • Right when the high court is of the conclusion that the way of the case may incorporate the decision of specific requests which are an impressive request of law and must be overseen by the high court in accelerating way.
  • The High court may think about the comfort of the gatherings for such to get together the finish of justice and towards the convenience of justice for both the gatherings.

The High court in the wake of accepting any such application from the candidate the court may regardless of whether require direct an inquiry and afterward choose whether such exchange is in light of a legitimate concern for justice or it is documented with a goal to crush the justice. On the off chance that the grounds of recording such applications are seen as bogus, unimportant or vexatious the court would excuse the application. The Attorney general of the state may likewise record the use of such exchange to the High court with a sworn statement which on the promise would again avow the substance of the application. The path court can likewise allude to the High court any such cases which may require move starting with one court then onto the next to meet the parts of the bargains.

  • Section 408. Cr.P.C – Power of Sessions Judge to transfer cases and appeals.

In sub-ordinance, to the High court, the sessions court likewise have vested power to move one starting with one court then onto the next under his purview inside his meeting division. This request might be made by the court for the better conveyance of justice and settle the slant of the person in question. An application will be favoured on following grounds:-

  • At the point when the court is sensibly fulfilled that the subordinate court can’t convey justice to the oppressed. The sessions court voluntarily may take all sensible measures to facilitate conveyance of justice by the court.
  • The application could be recorded by the lower court to the sessions court which may request such exchange or by the own agreement of the court. Or then again by the application moved by the gatherings required inside that course or the court may even consider the report of the lower court which favours or prescribes such exchange starting with one court then onto the next. To convey justice.
  • The applications which is made to the sessions court ought to be consistent with the arrangements of 407 (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) and (9). Before choosing any such utilization of move the duplicate of the application ought to be furnished to the open examiner and with a sensible chance to contend on the application recorded by the candidate. On the off chance that this activity isn’t acted in a similar way, the application gets void. No further moves could take place from thereof.
  • Section 409 Cr. P .C Withdrawal of cases and appeals by Sessions Judges.

Further in section 409 Cr.P.C, the Sessions judge is vested with extra regulatory capacities in regards to moving of the case starting with one court under his subjection then onto the next court under his subjection under after conditions:-

  • The Sessions judge can pull back cases and bids from any of the judges under his subjection. Furthermore, in the wake of getting such an exchange document from the associate Sessions court or from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.
  • The Sessions judges additionally have the power to review or pull back any intrigue which is lying pending before any Add. Sessions judge. In the wake of acquiring such a document from the move, the Sessions court may arrange it to be made over to some other Add. Sessions judge.

At the point when any of such withdrawal influenced under subsection 1 and 2 of area 409 Cr.P.C., the sessions judge may actually keep the issue with himself and afterward, further, the case would be attempted in his court or may act in agreement to the arrangements of this demonstration.

  • Section 410 Cr.P.C Withdrawal of cases by Judicial Magistrates

The Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief metropolitan magistrate are vested with the power to pull back any case from any legal magistrate either the top of the line or inferior which is in subjection to him and may ask into the substance of the path directed by the magistrate subordinate to him or may even exchange the path from that legal magistrate’s court to his court. In facilitation, the Chief Judicial Magistrate can likewise approve or additionally allude such a request to any magistrate under his subjection.

Any legal judge may under the light of territory 192(2) of the Cr.P.C enquire into any case which is made over to him from some other legal officer.

Section 411 : Cases pulled back by Executive Magistrates

Any Sub-Divisional Magistrate or District Magistrate who are Executive Magistrate can:

ØMake over for evacuation of any case began before him or any Magistrate subordinate to him.

ØPull back or survey any case made before his subordinate and organize such proceeding or imply it to expulsion.

vSection 412: Reasons which are to be recorded

A solicitation made under 408,409,410,411 by Sessions Judge or the Magistrate will be recorded with the reasons behind making it.

Case Laws

  • Gurucharan Das Chadha v. State Of Rajasthan

Sensible trepidation of the gathering that the justice won’t be done to the case is significant for an exchange of case. An applicant isn’t required to exhibit that justice won’t be met and the case definitely fizzles. It is one of the guidelines for the organization of justice. A simple charge of trepidation that justice can’t be met then the Court ought to choose whether such dread is sensible or not.

  • Surendra Kumar v. Vijayan

Under Section 408(1), the force gave on the Session Judge to move a case which is pending in the Court of extra Sessions Judge to another, regardless of whether the consultation has initiated or not, it is finished up to be an autonomous legal force and it isn’t dependent upon any bar forced by Section 409 (2) on its authoritative forces for reviewing a case after the preliminary or becoming aware of the case has started.

  • Ali Hussain And Anr. v. Emperor

The court held that the High Court when they practice the intensity of correction, they are not limited by Section 412 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Yet, it might look at the record to see whether a reasonable preliminary has been held and the choice taken as dependent on appropriate realities.

  • Food Inspector v. K.P. Alavikutty

The judge posted the case for preliminary in the wake of considering the plea of not guilty. At that point on re-association of the ward of courts, the case has been moved to another Magistrate under Section 410. The Magistrate to whom it has been moved is bound to the request for the forerunner and can’t go behind pre-comprehension organize.