Tampering of Evidence – Transfer Petition -Judgement of High Court dt 02.03.2016

Transfer Petition – Judgememt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 02.03.2016

TR.P.(CRL.) 55/2015

STATE ….. Petitioner

TR.P. (CRL) 55/2015, 56/2015, 57/2015 & 58/2015 Page 1 of 8

Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate
(SPP) with Mr. Rahul Mehra,
Standing Counsel (Criminal), Ms.
Nandita Rao, ASC (Criminal), Ms.
Aakashi Lodha and Ms. Vedika
Mittal, Advocates
versus

D.V MALHOTRA ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Pawan Narang, Advocate with
Ms. Prachi Agarwal, Advocate
TR.P.(CRL.) 56/2015

STATE ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate
(SPP) with Mr. Rahul Mehra,
Standing Counsel (Criminal), Ms.
Nandita Rao, ASC (Criminal), Ms.
Aakashi Lodha and Ms. Vedika
Mittal, Advocates
versus
SUSHIL ANSAL ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Harsh Bora, Advocate

TR.P.(CRL.) 57/2015
STATE ….. Petitioner

TR.P. (CRL) 55/2015, 56/2015, 57/2015 & 58/2015 Page 2 of 8

Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate
(SPP) with Mr. Rahul Mehra,
Standing Counsel (Criminal), Ms.
Nandita Rao, ASC (Criminal), Ms.
Aakashi Lodha and Ms. Vedika
Mittal, Advocates
versus
GOPAL ANSAL ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate
with Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha and Mr.
Sanjay Narain, Advocates
TR.P.(CRL.) 58/2015

STATE ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate
(SPP) with Mr. Rahul Mehra,
Standing Counsel (Criminal), Ms.
Nandita Rao, ASC (Criminal), Ms.
Aakashi Lodha and Ms. Vedika
Mittal, Advocates
versus

ANOOP SINGH ….. Respondent
Through: Ms. Seetab Ali Fatima, Advocate

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present petitions under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) seek transfer of the

following Criminal Revision Petitions pending before the Additional
Sessions Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi:-

(i) Criminal Revision Petition No.127/2014 titled as ‘D.V.

TR.P. (CRL) 55/2015, 56/2015, 57/2015 & 58/2015 Page 3 of 8

Malhotra vs. State.’
(ii) Criminal Revision Petition No.136/2014 titled as ‘Anoop
Singh vs. State.’
(iii) Criminal Revision Petition No.13/2014 titled as ‘Gopal
Ansal vs. State.’
(iv) Criminal Revision Petition No.141/2014 titled as ‘Sushil
Ansal vs. State.’

2. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the State as well as Mr. Pawan Narang, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of D.V. Malhotra, Mr. Harsh Bora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Sushil Ansal, Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Gopal Ansal and Ms. Seetab Ali Fatima, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Anoop Singh, in unison state that they have instructions from
their respective clients that the above-mentioned Criminal Revision
Petitions, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-03, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi as afore-stated be transferred to this Court for further
hearing and adjudication in accordance with law in terms of the provisions of

Section 407 (1)(c)(iv) of the Code. The relevant provisions of the Code
reads as follows:-

TR.P. (CRL) 55/2015, 56/2015, 57/2015 & 58/2015 Page 4 of 8

“407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals.

(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court-
(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any
Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or
(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to
arise, or
(c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of
this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the
parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it
may order-

(i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court
not qualified under sections 177 to 185 (both
inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire
into or try such offence;
(ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or
appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court
subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal
Court of equal or superior jurisdiction;
(iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a
Court of Session; or
(iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and
tried before itself.”

3. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel on instructions from Ms.
Nandita Rao, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) appearing on
behalf of the transfer petitioners further states that they unconditionally
withdraw any and all allegations made against the concerned Additional
Sessions Judge before whom the subject Criminal Revision Petitions are
pending.

4. Pleadings on behalf of the transfer petitioners in this regard are
accordingly expunged from the record.
5. The above order, apart from being rendered in view of the consent of
the parties as above mentioned, is also necessitated because this Court
considers it expedient so to do to meet the ends of justice.
6. As observed by this Court in Joginder Singh & Ors. vs. C.B.I. & Ors.
reported as 2016 (1) JCC 120 “It is one of the cardinal principles of
administration of justice that justice must not only be done but must be seen
to be done.”
7. Furthermore, the subject proceedings, that are being transferred to this
Court by way of the present order, arise as an offshoot of an unfortunate
incident, which may be referred to as the Uphaar Theatre Fire Tragedy that
occurred, as far back as on 13.06.1997. The present transfer is warranted in
order to protect and uphold the dignity and majesty of the judicial system
and to ensure the faith of the citizens in Courts of Law.
8. The transfer is in the aforesaid circumstances, strictly in terms of the
provision of Section 407 of the Code, inasmuch as, any case can be
transferred from a criminal court, subordinate to a High Court to any other
court of an equal or superior jurisdiction, if it considers it expedient so to do

TR.P. (CRL) 55/2015, 56/2015, 57/2015 & 58/2015 Page 5 of 8

to meet the ends of justice. This view is buttressed by the following
decisions:-

(i) Romesh Chandra Arora vs. State reported as AIR

TR.P. (CRL) 55/2015, 56/2015, 57/2015 & 58/2015 Page 6 of 8

1960 SC 154.
(ii) A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak and Another
reported as (1988) 2 SCC 602.
9. In Romesh Chandra Arora (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as follows:-

“10. Now, as to the order of transfer. The provisions of
Section 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code, appear to us to
be a sufficient answer to the contention urged on behalf of the
appellant. It states, inter alia, that whenever it is made to
appear to the High Court that such an order is expedient for
the ends of justice, the High Court may order that any
particular case or appeal be transferred and tried before itself.
This is stated in express terms in Section 526(i)(e)(iii) and
sub-section (3) of Section 526 states expressly that the High
Court may act on its own initiative in passing such an order.
In this particular case the High Court had the further
circumstance that it had earlier issued a rule for enhancement
of sentence, without knowing perhaps that an appeal had been
filed to the Sessions Judge of Delhi a few days earlier. When
this latter circumstance was brought to the notice of the High
Court, it thought it expedient for the ends of justice to transfer
the appeal to the High Court. We are unable to agree with
learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court
committed any illegality in passing the order of transfer. It is
true that the record does not disclose that any notice was
issued to the appellant before the order of transfer was made.
It was open to the High Court to act on its own initiative and
the appellant can make no grievance of the order of transfer
on the ground of prejudice, because the appellant was fully

TR.P. (CRL) 55/2015, 56/2015, 57/2015 & 58/2015 Page 7 of 8

heard both as to the correctness of his conviction and the
propriety of the sentence originally passed against him by the
learned Magistrate.”

10. In view of the foregoing, Criminal Revision Petition No.127/2014
titled as ‘D.V. Malhotra vs. State’, Criminal Revision Petition No.136/2014
titled as ‘Anoop Singh vs. State’, Criminal Revision Petition No.13/2014
titled as ‘Gopal Ansal vs. State’ and Criminal Revision Petition No.141/2014
titled as ‘Sushil Ansal vs. State’ pending before the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi are transferred to this
Court forthwith. The District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, New
Delhi is directed to transmit the papers and proceedings of the afore-
mentioned Criminal Revision Petitions to this Court, within a period of one
week from today along with the relevant Trial Court Record in case FIR
No.207/2006, under Sections 120-B/109/201/409 IPC, registered at Police
Station- Tilak Marg, titled as ‘State vs. Dinesh Chand Sharma and Another.’
11. The afore-stated Criminal Revision Petitions be listed before this
Bench on 31.03.2016 for hearing and disposal in accordance with law,
subject to obtaining necessary orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
12. It is made clear that the transferred Criminal Revision Petitions shall
be heard on a day-to-day basis till disposal.

13. With the above directions, the transfer petitions are allowed and
disposed of accordingly.

TR.P. (CRL) 55/2015, 56/2015, 57/2015 & 58/2015 Page 8 of 8

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MARCH 02, 2016
dn