Deepa Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The petitioner, who is one of the accused persons in Giddi P.S. Case No.9 of 2001 which was registered for the offence under Sections 452, 342,

302, 201 r/w 34 IPC, seeks transfer of the proceeding in S.T.Case No.3 of 2003 from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribagh to a

competent court of jurisdiction at Ramgarh.

Main ground taken by the petitioner for transfer of S.T.Case No.3 of 2003 to the court at Ramgarh is that after re-organization of the Hazaribagh

Sessions Division vide Notification dated 01.10.2015 the place of occurrence which is Manjhila Chumba now falls under the newly created Ramgarh

Sessions Division and, therefore, the Sessions Court at Hazaribagh has no jurisdiction to try S.T.Case No.3 of 2003. The petitioner has also taken a

plea of inconvenience caused to him in defending himself in a court at Hazaribagh.

In so far as, the plea taken by the petitioner that it would be inconvenient for him to defend himself if trial of S.T.Case No.3 of 2003 continues at

the Sessions Court, Hazaribagh, it needs to be indicated that such a plea has been taken by the petitioner mid-way; the case has been committed to the

court of sessions and all along the petitioner defended himself when the matter was pending in the Sessions Court, Hazaribagh. Moreover, a bald

statement by an accused, that it would be inconvenient for him to defend himself if the trial continues at a particular place, cannot be a ground to

transfer a criminal case from one sessions division to another sessions division. Foundational facts for establishing inconvenience to the petitioner are

lacking in the transfer petition.

In so far as, transfer on the ground that on re-organization of Hazaribagh Sessions Division now the place of occurrence falls under the newly

created Ramgarh Sessions Division, it needs to be recorded that it was Mahuatanr where according to the prosecution the accused persons have killed

the deceased-Darshan Saw. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a

court within whose jurisdiction it was committed. But at the same time the Code provides that if the offence has been committed within the local

jurisdiction of more than one court it would be legal and proper to conduct the trial of the case in any one of the courts in whose local jurisdiction the

offence has been committed. Not only that, the Code itself provides exceptions to section 177 also; section 407 itself is an exception to the general rule

engrafted under section 177. The court, within whose local jurisdiction a part of occurrence has taken place, would have jurisdiction to try the case.

In the above facts, finding no merit in this transfer petition, Tr. Petition (Cr.) No.25 of 2017 is dismissed.