Mere inconvenience or hardship in travelling a distance no ground to transfer case: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said, mere inconvenience or hardship that the accused may have to face in travelling a distance would not be a ground to transfer a case from one place to another.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said it must fall within the ambit of the expression “expedient for the ends of justice”, for the purpose of transfer of any case or proceedings under Section 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also said ensuring a fair trial is the predominant consideration for a court to rule on a motion for transfer of a case.

The bench emphasised that when a complainant instituted a case in a court of his choosing and such a court has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter then the transfer of such case has to be guided by principles that would achieve the ends of justice, which means justice for all the parties involved in the litigation.

In a recent judgment, the court dismissed a plea filed by M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries for transfer of a case filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act from a court in Chandigarh to the court in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.

The bench said that the assertion that no part of the cause of action could be said to have arisen within Chandigarh, is of no avail to the petitioner, more particularly when the law itself allows the institution of a complaint in Chandigarh.

"The enactment of sub-section (2)(a) of Section 142 of the NI Act and the explanation thereto allows the complainant to file a complaint before the courts within whose jurisdiction the collection branch of the bank falls," the bench said.

In the present case, while contending that the court in Chandigarh lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the case, it was not the case of the petitioner that the respondent Bank has no collection branch in Chandigarh, the bench pointed out.

The court also rejected an argument related to language barrier and convenience.

"It is always open for the petitioner accused to pray for exemption from personal appearance or request the Court that he may be permitted to join the proceedings online," the bench said.

The court also said that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine and more particularly on the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

"This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial," the bench said.