Delve into the intricate legal analysis by the court in a recent case focusing on fair trial and transfer of cases. The court’s decision regarding the accused individuals, the right to fair trial, and the principle of justice is under scrutiny. Stay tuned to understand the complexities and implications of this legal matter.
Facts
- The applicant is not a complainant in any of the cases for which transfer is sought.
- The applicant has no direct involvement or grounds for joining in public interest.
- An intervenor, claiming to be an agriculturist reliant on financial aid from NDCCB, has sought to intervene in the proceedings.
- The application for intervention by Omprakash Bhaurao Kamdi, states him as a ‘necessary’ and ‘proper’ party to the case.
- The Chairman of NDCCB filed an FIR in 2002 against the petitioner for alleged non-delivery of government securities worth Rs. 125 crores.
- The accused company, M/s Home Trade Limited, is central to most cases involved, accused of engaging in stock, securities, brokering, and trading.
- The petitioner and another individual are alleged to have misappropriated funds by unauthorized sale of government securities and non-delivery of securities in time.
- The petitioner seeks transfer of the trial related to these allegations in the ongoing transfer petitions.
Also Read: Withdrawal of Prospective Resignation: Legal Analysis
Arguments
- Multiple FIRs registered against petitioner and other accused in different States with similar allegations leading to multiple pending trials in various Trial Courts.
- Common accused persons and witnesses in all FIRs leading to the need for attendance at multiple Court hearings causing delays and expenses.
- Intervention application by a third party should not typically be allowed in criminal cases unless directly related or substantially affected by the case or in the public interest.
- The intervention application does not provide grounds for how non-joining of applicant may cause prejudice or affect public interest.
- Respondent has opposed transfer petitions primarily on the ground of belated filing.
- High Court of Bombay had directed concerned Trial Court to complete trial in C.C. No 147/2002 within four months.
- Proceedings in the said case are at final stage.
- Prayer for transfer of cases deserves to be dismissed.
Also Read: Acquittal in Kidnapping and Abduction Case: Court’s Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The High Court’s order effectively excluded the accused from putting forward their best defense before the Trial Court.
- The State’s contention that prejudice would be caused by allowing the transfer at a late stage is deemed meritless.
- The accused and the petitioner were acting as Directors of the accused company in question.
- The High Court split the trial of other accused persons from the trial of Sanjay Hariram Agarwal causing prejudice.
- Common allegations in the FIRs related to fraudulent activities by accused persons in the name of the accused company, M/s Home Trade Limited.
- The State confirmed during investigation that the accused company was not eligible for certain transactions.
- Commonality of facts in each FIR and most transactions took place in Mumbai.
- The High Court directed a time-bound completion of trial against other accused persons before commencing trial against the applicant.
- Multiple FIRs across various states have been filed against the petitioner and other accused persons since 2002.
- Delay in trials attributed to the multiplicity of proceedings and practical difficulties faced by Trial Courts.
- Details provided show the distribution of FIRs across different states where cases are pending.
- The High Court’s approach in granting differential treatment to the petitioner by transferring the cases only against them prima facie violates the right to fair trial of other accused individuals.
- The common nature of allegations against the petitioner in all FIRs and related criminal proceedings across four states justifies the transfer of the petitions to ensure justice and fair trial.
Also Read: K. vs. The State of Rajasthan)
Supreme Court Judgment Upholds Acquittal in Falsifying Date of Birth Case
Decision
- Transferor courts to transmit record of cases to Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court by 31.10.2022
- Accused in the cases to appear before Principal Judge on 14.11.2022
- New courts to frame charges within two months from appearance of accused
- Trial to be concluded within two years from framing of charges
Case Title: KETAN KANTILAL SETH Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (2022 INSC 945)
Case Number: T.P.(Crl.) No.-000333-000348 / 2021
