High Court
Legal Reasoning
cran150.24-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 150 OF 20241.Pradip s/o Subhash Kathmande2.Madhav s/o Bhivrao Thombare3.Dattatraya s/o Mahadev Bhise4.Bhagwan s/o Shriram Arsul ...Applicantsversus1.The State of Maharashtra2.The Principal SecretaryHome department. 3.The Public Prosecutor/Government Pleader High Court, Bench at Aurangabad4.The Investigating OfficerPaithan Police Station 5.The Investigating OfficerKranti Chowk Police Station 6.The Investigating OfficerJawahar Nagar Police Station 7.The Investigating OfficerCity Chowk Police Station 8.The Investigating OfficerKallamb Police Station 9.The Investigating OfficerTuljapur Police Station 10.The Investigating OfficerAnandnagar Police StationOsmanabad 11.The Investigating Officer
Legal Reasoning
cran150.24-2- Washi Police Station 12.The Investigating OfficerPathri Police Station 13.The Investigating Officer...Respondents Ausa Police Station ...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Madake Datta A.APP for Respondents: Mr. Mukesh K. Goyanka ….. CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATED : 14th JUNE, 2024. PER COURT :- 1.By this application, the applicants are seeking transfer ofM.P.I.D. cases registered against them, pending before the learnedSessions Judges at Aurangabad, Parbhani, Latur, Osmanabad andBeed, to the court of competent jurisdiction at Beed.2.It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants thatall the applicants were working in a sugar factory i.e. ShambhuMahadev Sugar Factory at Hawargaon, which was run by the mainaccused viz. Dilip Shankar Apet. The applicant No.1 was working asAgricultural Officer, applicant No.2 was working as Watchman,applicant No.3 was working as Store Keeper and applicant No.4 wasworking as clerk in the said sugar factory. The applicants are notconcerned with the Shubh Kalyan Multi State Co-operative Societyand its affairs. Learned counsel further submitted that the names of cran150.24-3- the applicants were initially not appearing in the F.I.R. and total 24crimes have been registered against the applicants in various districtsof Marathwada region. Learned counsel further submitted thataccused No.1 is died. Learned counsel further submitted that all theapplicants have been released on bail. The Head Office of ShubhKalyan Multi State Co-operative Society, Hawargaon is in Beeddistrict. Therefore, for avoiding conflict decisions, the applicants seektransfer of all proceedings pending in other districts to the court oflearned Sessions Judge at Beed. Learned counsel further submittedthat nature of allegations against all the applicants are same and forspeedy disposal of the cases, all cases be transferred to theSessions Court at Beed. If all the cases are transferred at one place,it would save time of the court and it would be convenient for all theparties. Hence, requested to allow the application.3.Learned counsel for the applicants relied on the judgmentof this Court in the case of Pramod Bhaichand Raisoni and Othersvs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in 2019 ALLMR (Cri.) 3784 and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in thecase of Ramesh Nagnath Kadam vs. State of Maharashtra andothers (Writ Petition (Cri.) No. 245 of 2021, decided on 16.09.2021). 4.It is the contention of the learned A.P.P. that the application cran150.24-4- is not maintainable as there are total 16 accused and out of those 16accused, only four accused/applicants have filed this application.Learned A.P.P. further submitted that in all 24 offences are registeredagainst the applicants in different police stations and the saidoffences are being investigated by different investigating officersattached to the concerned police stations. The allegations againstthe applicants are that they have duped poor depositors with promisethat they will pay handsome interest on their deposit amounts. All thedepositors are from poor sections of the society. If these matters areclubbed at one place, it would cause harassment to the depositors,investigating officers and the witnesses. Moreover, for theconvenience of the accused persons, inconvenience cannot becaused or pain cannot be given to the depositors, investigatingofficers and the witnesses.5.Learned A.P.P. further submitted that the judgment cited bythe learned counsel for the applicants in the case of RameshNagnath Kadam (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case,as the said case relates to Prevention of Corruption Act. So also inthe case of Pramod Bhaichand Raisoni (supra) the investigationwas done by the one investigating agency as per the directions of thisCourt. Thus, the ratio laid down in both the aforesaid cases would notbe applicable to the present case. Hence, the learned A.P.P. prayed cran150.24-5- to reject the application. 6.I have heard both learned counsel. The applicants areseeking transfer of cases pending against them in five districts toone district. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to Section 407of Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-“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 inany Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely toarise; or(c)that an order under this section is required by anyprovision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of theparties 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 notqualified under sections 177 to 185 (both inclusive), butin other respects competent to inquire into or try suchoffence;(ii) that any particular case, or appeal, or class of cases orappeals, be transferred from a criminal Court subordinateto its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equalor superior jurisdiction; cran150.24-6- (iii)that any particular case be committed for trial to a Courtof Session; or(iv)that any particular case or appeal be transferred to andtried before itself.(2)The High Court may act either on the report of the lowerCourt, or on the application of a party interested, or on its owninitiative:Provided that no application shall lie to the High Courtfor transferring a case from one criminal Court to another criminalCourt in the same sessions division, unless an application for suchtransfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected byhim.”7.Sub clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 407 of Cr.P.C., asquoted above, states that the transfer of case can be done toconsider the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or isexpedient for the ends of justice. In present case, it appears that inall 24 cases have been registered against the applicants in fivedistricts in different talukas of Marathwada region. The said offenceshave been investigated by the different investigating officers. The firstinformants and witnesses are different in each offence and theyreside at different places in the respective talukas. The distancebetween all these districts are more than 100 kilometers. So it wouldnot be convenient to direct the complainants, witnesses and theinvestigating officers to go to one district. Moreover, there are total cran150.24-7- 16 accused in the said crimes. Out of those 16 accused, only 4 ofthem have filed the present application. The other accused personshave not been added as respondents in this application. Hence, thisapplication is not maintainable.8.I have also gone through the case laws cited by the learnedcounsel for the applicants. It appears that the facts involved in thecited cases and the present case are different, as in the case ofRamesh Nagnath Kadam (supra), the facts relate to the offencesregistered under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. Soalso in the case of Pramod Bhaichand Raisoni (supra) theinvestigation was done by one agency as per the order passed bythis Court. 9.Considering the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following order:-O R D E RCriminal application is rejected. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) rlj/