Susama Gayan vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance)

G. Satapathy, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

This is an application U/S.407 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking transfer of the case in VGR No.12 of 2013 arising out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.15 of 2013 pending in the file of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Baripada to learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore.

Facts in precise are the petitioner is the wife of Indrajit Behera and on 23.03.2013, a vigilance case in Balasore Vigilance PS Case No.15 of 2013 was registered against the husband of the petitioner, who was the Inspector-in-charge (IIC), Gorumahisani PS at the relevant time, for commission of offences U/Ss.13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988 for amassing assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs.51,16,057/-. Accordingly, the investigation ensued which culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the petitioner and her husband for self same offence along with offence U/S.109 of IPC and trial ensued therein, but the petitioner seeks for transfer of the aforesaid case on the ground of her inconvenience and ailment of Rheumatism and other deceases.

In the course of hearing of transfer application, Mr. Anirudha Das, learned counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court through Clause(c) to Sub-Section 1 of Section 407 of Cr.P.C. and the photocopy of the list of witnesses stated to be cited in the charge sheet, submits that there are 73 witnesses, out of whom many are residents of Bhadrak and nearby area, but the petitioner being a lady having ailments in the aforesaid circumstance, has to suffer a lot of inconvenience in attending the Court of learned Special Judge Vigilance, at Baripada. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly prays to transfer the aforesaid vigilance case to the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore for the convenience of the petitioner and witnesses.

On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Rizvi, learned ASC-Vigilance opposes the prayer of the petitioner and he inter alia submits that the petitioner is not required to think about the inconvenience of the witnesses, as it is the duty of the prosecution to produce the witnesses. Mr. Rizvi, learned ASC-Vigilance, accordingly, prays to dismiss the transfer application.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, it is noticed that the petitioner has only annexed the photocopies of F.I.R. and incomplete charge-sheet containing only the list of witnesses in the vigilance case, but most of the witnesses are official witnesses whose addresses are stated in the relevant column to be residents of Balasore, Cuttack, Jagatsinghpur, Bhubaneswar etc. Admittedly, the trial has already commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is of course true that whenever it is made to appear before the High Court that an order under this Section is required by a provision of this Court, or will tend to the general inconvenience to the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it may order for transfer of the case, but the applicant in this case cannot advance the case of inconvenience of the witnesses, especially when none of the witnesses have stated so and the production of witness before the trial Court is in the exclusive domain of prosecution. The petitioner has also advanced her ailment as a ground for transfer, but not a single medical document is enclosed by her to evidence such fact of the ailment of the petitioner. Besides, the distance between Baripada and Bhadrak has been taken as another ground for transfer of the case, but that cannot be sole ground for transfer of the criminal case because in anyway the petitioner has to travel to another place to face the charge. Last but not the least, in view of the advent of technology, the witnesses can also appear and depose their evidence by availing virtual Court facility and therefore, inconvenience of the witnesses in this case cannot be regarded as a ground for transfer of the case. It is also significant that the trial has already commenced and the case is of the year 2013, but in the meantime, ten years has elapsed with commencement of trial.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstance, this Court does not find any merit in the transfer application. Hence, the transfer application stands dismissed.

.……………………….