REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO. 37 OF 2009

Bhiaru Ram & Ors.                   .... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.     .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) The  petitioners,  numbering  nine,  have  approached  

this  Court  under  Section  406  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  

Procedure, 1973 seeking transfer of Special Case No. 22 of  

2008  pending  before  the  Special  Judge,  CBI,  Greater  

Mumbai,  being  CBI  Case  No.  RC/03(A)/2005-ACU-05-

CBI, New Delhi,  to a Court  of  competent jurisdiction at  

Jaipur.

1

2) Factual Matrix

On 29.09.2005, a First Information Report (in short  

“FIR”)  was  registered  at  New Delhi  bearing  FIR No.  RC  

3A/2005/ACU(V), for offences under Section 13(1)(e) read  

with  Section  13(2)  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  

1988  against  one  Shri  B.R.  Meena,  who  is  respondent  

No.3 herein.  At the relevant time, respondent No.3 was  

posted  as  Commissioner  of  Income-Tax,  Income  Tax  

Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai.  The substance of allegations  

in the FIR against Shri B.R. Meena was that he was in  

possession of disproportionate assets from 01.04.1991 to  

31.03.2005.   During  the  said  period,  he  was posted  at  

various places such as Calcutta, Ahmedabad, Jaipur and  

Mumbai.   After  carrying  out  the  search  at  the  official  

residence of Shri B.R. Meena and his family members at  

various  places,  finally,  the  C.B.I.,  on  27.03.2008,  filed  

charge  sheet  before  the  Court  of  Special  Judge,  CBI,  

Greater Mumbai.  In the said charge sheet, petitioner Nos.  

1-9 was arrayed as accused Nos. 5-13.

2

3) Reasons for transfer

According to the petitioners, as per the charge sheet,  

most of the alleged disproportionate assets/properties are  

situated at Rajasthan and most of the witnesses are from  

Rajasthan, Jaipur, in particular.  As far as the petitioners  

are concerned, the allegations against them are of having  

abetted  Shri  B.R.  Meena-Respondent  No.  3  herein  and  

Smt. Champa Devi, wife of Shri B.R. Meena, Respondent  

No.  4  herein,  by  fabricating  false  evidence  through  

preparation  of  false  Agreement  to  Sell  in  order  to  help  

them  for  justifying  the  huge  cash  recoveries.   All  the  

petitioners are residents of the State of Rajasthan.  Most  

of  the  alleged  disproportionate  assets  are  situated  at  

Rajasthan and FIRs were registered at Delhi, therefore, the  

CBI ought to have filed charge sheet at Jaipur, Rajasthan.  

It is also stated by the petitioners that since all of them  

hail  from  Rajasthan  and  most  of  the  witnesses  to  be  

examined are also residents of Rajasthan, for convenience,  

3

the case pending before the Special Judge, CBI, Greater  

Mumbai be transferred to Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4) Heard  Mr.  P.H.  Parekh,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for the petitioners and Mr. H.P. Raval, learned  

Additional  Solicitor  General,  for  the  contesting  

respondents.

5) Section  406  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  

empowers this Court to transfer any case or appeal from  

one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal  

Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal  

Court  of  equal  or  superior  jurisdiction  subordinate  to  

another High Court.  We are concerned about sub-clause  

(1) of Section 406 which reads as under:

“406. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals –  (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an  order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may  direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one  High  Court  to  another  High  Court  or  from  a  Criminal  Court  subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal  or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court.”

It  is clear from the abovesaid provision that for the ends of  

justice, this Court can transfer any criminal case or appeal to  

any  place.   In  order  to  transfer  a  case  from  one  State  to  

4

another  or  from  one  place  to  another,  there  must  be  

“reasonable apprehension” on the part of the party to a case  

that  justice  may not  be  done.  Mere  allegation  that  there  is  

apprehension that justice will not be done, cannot be the basis  

of transfer.  In fact, in the case on hand, it is not the claim of  

the petitioners  that  they may not get  fair  justice  at  Special  

Court,  CBI,  Greater  Mumbai  but  they  are  seeking  transfer  

mainly on the basis of convenience stating that all of them are  

hailing from Rajasthan and majority of the witnesses going to  

be examined are from Jaipur, Rajasthan.

6) In  a  recent  judgment  pronounced  on  23.07.2010  in  

D.A.V.  Boys  Sr.  Sec,  School  Etc.  Etc. vs.  D.A.V.  College  

Managing Committee, Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 1233-1237  

of 2008, this Court while considering the power of this Court  

to transfer suits, appeals etc. on the civil side under Section  

25 of Civil Procedure Code has held that,

“Section 25 of the Code itself makes it clear that if any application  is  made for  transfer,  after notice to the parties,  if  the Court  is  satisfied  that  an order  of  transfer  is  expedient  for  the  ends  of  justice necessary direction may be issued for transfer of any suit,  appeal or other proceedings from a High Court or other Civil Court  in one State to another High Court or other Civil  Court in any  other State.  In order to maintain fair trial, this Court can exercise  this power and transfer the proceedings to an appropriate Court.  The mere convenience of the parties may not be enough for the  exercise  of  power  but  it  must  also  be  shown  that  trial  in  the  

5

chosen forum will result in denial of justice.  Further illustrations  are, balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the  defendant or witnesses and reasonable apprehension in the mind  of the litigant that he might not get justice in the Court in which  suit  is  pending.    The  above-mentioned  instances  are  only  illustrative in nature. In the interest of justice and to adherence of  fair trial, this Court exercises its discretion and order transfer in a  suit or appeal or other proceedings.”

From  the  above,  it  is  clear  that  the  above  mentioned  

principles  have  to  be  kept  in  mind  while  dealing  with  

transfer petitions.

7)  In the case on hand, except convenience, the petitioners  

have not pressed into service any other ground for transfer.  

In  fact,  Mr.  P.H.  Parekh,  informed  this  Court  that  the  

petitioners are willing to attend the proceedings at Delhi, if  

the case is transferred to Special  Court, CBI, Delhi.   Mr.  

H.P.Raval,  learned  ASG,  after  taking  us  through  specific  

averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of  

Respondent  Nos.  1  &  2  (CBI),  submitted  that  the  main  

accused Shri B.R. Meena is a very influential person in the  

State of Rajasthan and there is strong apprehension that  

due to influence of Shri B.R. Meena, there would be no fair  

trial at Jaipur or any other place in the State of Rajasthan.  

He also pointed out that the Court of Special Judge, CBI at  

6

Greater  Mumbai  has  ample  jurisdiction  to  try  this  case  

because  various  movable  properties  have  been  found  in  

Mumbai and the main accused, Sh. B.R. Meena, was posted  

in Mumbai from 2001 to the end of the check period, i.e.  

04.10.2005 and this is the period during which most of the  

properties  were  allegedly  acquired by him and his  family  

members.

8) We have already adverted to the fact that against the  

main accused, Shri B.R. Meena, (IRS 1977), Commissioner  

of Income Tax, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, a  

case has been registered on 29.09.2005 under Section 13(2)  

read with Section 13(1)(e)  of  the Prevention of Corruption  

Act, 1988 for possession of assets in his own name and in  

the  name  of  his  family  members  to  the  extent  of  

Rs.43,29,394/- which were disproportionate to his known  

sources of income and could not be satisfactorily accounted  

for.   It  further  shows  that  respondent  No.3,  during  the  

check period i.e. 01.04.1993 to 04.10.2005, acquired assets  

disproportionate  to  his  known  sources  of  income  to  the  

extent  of  Rs.1,39,39,025/-.   The  petitioners  have  been  

7

charge  sheeted for  commission  of  offences  under  Section  

109  read  with  Section  193  of  the  IPC read  with  Section  

13(2)  read  with  Section  13(1)(e)  of  the  Prevention  of  

Corruption Act, 1988 for having actively aided and abetted  

Respondent  Nos.  3  to  4  by  fabricating  false  evidence  

through preparation  of  false  Agreements  to  Sell  with  the  

object to justify/explain the huge cash recoveries from the  

residential premises of respondent No.3.  It further reveals  

that  the  petitioners  entered  into  false  transactions  with  

respondent No.3 showing receipt of cash amounts against  

alleged purchase of immovable properties from him.  The  

stamp papers were purchased against registration of case  

and false Agreements to Sell were prepared in connivance  

with each other.

9) A  perusal  of  the  charge  sheet  containing  all  these  

details clearly shows that witnesses to be examined are not  

only from Jaipur,  Rajasthan, but also from various other  

places including Mumbai.  Though the petitioners may have  

a little inconvenience, the mere inconvenience may not be  

sufficient ground for the exercise of power of transfer but it  

8

must be shown that the trial in the chosen forum will result  

in  failure  of  justice.   We  have  already  pointed  out  that  

except the plea of inconvenience on the ground that they  

have to come all the way from Rajasthan no other reason  

was pressed into service.  Even, the request for transfer to  

Delhi cannot be accepted since it would not be beneficial  

either to the petitioners or to the prosecution. In fact, the  

main accused, respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have not filed any  

petition seeking transfer. In such circumstances, the plea of  

the petitioners  for  transfer  of  the  case from the  Court  of  

Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai to Special Judge, CBI,  

Jaipur on the ground of inconvenience cannot be accepted.  

10) In the light of the above discussion and conclusion,  

the transfer petition is dismissed.   

         ....…………………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)  

...…………………………………J.           (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)  

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 3, 2010.           

9