Case Name: M/S Shri Sendhuragro and Oil Industries Pranab Prakash v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Case Number: T.P.(Crl.) No. 608/2024 and Others
The Supreme Court has ruled that mere inconvenience to the accused cannot be a valid reason to transfer a trial under Section 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). It emphasized that the transfer of a trial should not be ordered routinely but only in specific situations.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a dispute between M/S Shri Sendhuragro and Oil Industries, a proprietary firm, and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The bank filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), alleging dishonor of a cheque issued by the petitioner. The complaint was lodged in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh (Union Territory).
The petitioner, through its proprietor, filed a transfer petition under Section 406 of CrPC, seeking to move the trial to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. The primary argument was that no cause of action had arisen in Chandigarh for the bank to initiate the complaint. The petitioner contended that since the cheque was drawn in Tamil Nadu, the trial should be conducted there instead.
The bank, however, argued that under Section 142 of the NI Act, a complainant has the right to file a case in the jurisdiction where the bank branch, where the cheque was presented, is located. Since the cheque was deposited in Chandigarh, the bank maintained that the trial should proceed there.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A two-judge bench consisting of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed the petition and provided important clarifications regarding the transfer of trials under Section 406 of CrPC.
The Court highlighted the following key considerations:
State and Prosecution Conduct - If the prosecution is colluding with the accused, it may result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court will examine whether the State machinery or prosecution is favoring the accused, thereby undermining the integrity of the legal process.
Influence on Witnesses - The Court considers whether there is substantial evidence that the accused may intimidate, manipulate, or influence prosecution witnesses. If the accused has the potential to interfere with witness testimonies, it can justify the need for a transfer.
Comparative Hardships - The Court evaluates the level of inconvenience that may arise for the accused, the complainant, witnesses, and the prosecution. It also takes into account the financial burden on the State for arranging travel and accommodations for witnesses and officials. The overall impact of the transfer on all parties involved is assessed.
Communal or Social Influence - If the trial is taking place in an environment charged with communal or social tensions, where a fair trial may not be possible due to hostility or bias, the Court may consider transferring the case to ensure impartiality.
Interference in Justice – The Court examines whether external pressures or hostility are likely to disrupt the judicial process. If there are credible threats or significant opposition affecting the course of justice, a transfer may be necessary to maintain the fairness of the trial.
Court’s Interpretation of Section 406 CrPC :
The Supreme Court clarified that while there is no fixed rule for granting a transfer, such decisions should be made cautiously and only in exceptional cases to ensure a fair trial.
It also pointed out that under Section 142 of the NI Act, a complainant has the right to file a case in the jurisdiction where the bank branch, where the cheque was presented, is located. The accused’s argument that another court had jurisdiction was not sufficient to justify a transfer.
Final Judgment :
The Court ruled that the accused's inconvenience in traveling from Coimbatore to Chandigarh did not meet the legal standard of "expedient for the ends of justice" under Section 406 of CrPC. The accused could instead seek exemption from personal appearance or participate in hearings online.
As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition and upheld the proceedings in Chandigarh.
Empower Your Legal Practice with AI
Are you a legal professional? Stay ahead with our innovative Lawttornet.AI tool. Streamline your legal processes, enhance productivity, and gain a competitive edge. Experience the future of legal technology—try our free Webinar session today!
Comments