K V.S. RAOversusC.B.I & ORS
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 180
- Decided
- 10 March 2014
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
Holding
When two or more pending criminal cases against the same parties are similar in nature, they may be transferred to a common court, and the petitioners have made out a case for such transfer.
Summary
The petitioners sought transfer of two criminal proceedings pending in the Special Court, Lucknow, to the Special Court, Delhi, arguing that the cases were similar in nature and that most witnesses were medical officers, with the ultimate decision taken at the ministerial level in Delhi. The CBI opposed the transfer, contending that many witnesses would have to travel from various cities across the country. The Supreme Court held that the settled principle of law permits transfer of two or more similar cases against the same parties to a common court for the convenience of parties and efficient trial. Considering the nature of the cases, the location of key decision‑makers, and the convenience of witnesses, the Court found that the petitioners had made out a case for transfer. Consequently, Criminal Case No. 5 of 2013 was ordered to be transferred to the Special Court, Patiala House, New Delhi and to be tried together with Criminal Case No. 3 of 2012, with directions for speedy completion of the trial.
Issues considered
- When can multiple criminal cases pending against the same parties be transferred to a common court?
- Does the convenience of parties and witnesses justify the transfer of cases from one Special Court to another despite objections from the investigating agency?
Subjects
Judgment
[2014) 3 S.C.R. 658
A K V.S. RAO
v.
C.B.I & ORS
(Transfer Pet1t1on (Crl.) No 89 of 2013 etc.)
MARCH 10, 2014
B
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.J
TRANSFER PETITIONS:
c Transfer of cases - CA~es against accused pending in
Special Court, Lucknow and Special Court, Delhi - Held: It is
the settled principle of .'aw that when two or more cases are
pending against the petitioners/respondents which are similar
in nature, cases can be transferred from one court to another
D - Petitioners have made out a case for transfer - Taking note
of the fact that most of the witnesses are either doctors or
officors working in respective medical colleges and also that
the ultimate decision was taken only at the ministerial level
which is at Delhi, in the interest and convenience of all parties,
E a// the cases are to be tried together at Delhi - Therefore,
Criminal Case No. 5 of 2013 pending before the Court of
Special Judge, Anti Corruption No. 4, CBI, Lucknow, is
ordered to be transferred to the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I,
Patiala House, New Delhi and is to be heard along with
Criminal Case No. 3 of 2012
F
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition
(Crl.) No. 89 of 2013.
WITH
G T.P. (Crl.) Nos. 100, 108, 124 & 125 of 2013.
Sidharth Luthra, ASG, Mukul Rohtagi,, Huzefa Ahmadi,
Dayan Krishnan, C.D. Singh, Sakshi Kakkar, Abdhesh
Choudhary, Amit Kumar, Sanjay Singh, Sanjit Kumar, Rajiv
Ranjan Dwivedi, S.D. Singh. Bharti Tyagi, Jitender Singh, Nikhil
H 658
K.V.S. RAO v. C.B.I. & ORS. 659
Nayyar, Ambuj Agrawal, Akansha, Dhananjay Baijal, Kumud A
Lata Das. Rajiv Nanda. Meenakshi Grover, Supriya Juneja,
C.K. Sharma, B.V. Balaram Das for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER 8
1. Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners as well as learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the respondent-CBI.
c
2. After going into all the details furnished in the transfer
petitions as well as the counter affidavit filed by the C.B.I., we
are of the view that the petitioners have made out a case for
transfer. It is the settled principle of law that when two or more
cases are pending against the petitioners/respondents which D
are similar in nature can be transferred from one Court to
another. In the case on hand the only objection projected by the
learned Additional Solicitor General is that apart from the official
witnesses, the other witnesses have to come from various
places viz. Kanpur, Rampur, Bareilly, Ahmedabad, Lucknow,
Patna, Kolkata, Rohtak, Latur, Chennai and Mumbai. E
3. Taking note of the fact that most of the witnesses are
either doctors or officers working in respective medical
colleges and also of the fact that the ultimate decision was
taken only at the ministerial level which is at Delhi, we feel that F
in the interest and convenience of all parties, all these cases
are to· be tried together at Delhi. Therefore, Criminal Case No.
5 of 2013 titled as Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Dr.
Keshav Kumar Agarwal & Ors. registered on the basis of the
F.l.R. No. RC006201 OA0014 of 2010 dated 22.5.2010 pending G
before the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption No. 4, CBI,
Lucknow, is ordered to be transferred to the Court of Special
Judge, C.8.1, Patiala House, New Delhi and is to be heard
along with Criminal Case No. 3 of 2012 titled as Central Bureau
of Investigation Vs. Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss & Ors.
H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A 4. The transfer petitions are allowed accordingly.
5. After transfer and receipt of all the required records, the
transferee Court is directed to take all endeavour for early
completion of the trial.
B 6. In view of the order in transfer petitions, no order is
required in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for discharge of
earlier advocate.
R.P. Transfer Petitions allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.