LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal case should be transferred due to the medical condition of the accused, balancing their right to a fair trial with the rights of other co-accused.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Devendra Kumar Saxena vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Others
Judgment Date: 20 April 2021
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2021
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Can the severe medical condition of an accused be the sole ground for transferring a criminal case to a different location? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a retired Chief Engineer seeking the transfer of his corruption cases from West Bengal to New Delhi. The court had to balance the petitioner’s health concerns with the rights of other co-accused and the overall interest of justice.
This judgment was delivered by Justice V. Ramasubramanian.
Case Background
The case involves two transfer petitions filed by Devendra Kumar Saxena, a retired Chief Engineer of the Central Public Works Department. The first transfer petition (Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 355 of 2020) seeks the transfer of Special CBI Case No. 18 of 2012, where he is Accused No. 1, from Siliguri, Darjeeling, West Bengal, to New Delhi. The second transfer petition (Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 357 of 2020) seeks to transfer Special CBI Case No. 41 of 2012, where he and his wife are accused, also from Siliguri to New Delhi.
The petitioner, aged approximately 70, claimed to suffer from severe health issues, including a paralytic attack and brain stroke, making it difficult for him to move, walk, speak, or perform routine activities without assistance. He argued that these conditions made it challenging for him to attend court proceedings in Darjeeling.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) stated that the charges against the petitioner include offences under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in one case, and under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the other case. The FIR in the first case was lodged on 30.09.2010, and the final report was filed on 30.06.2011. The FIR in the second case was lodged on 05.01.2011, and the final report was filed on 31.05.2012.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 30.09.2010 | Petitioner retired from service. FIR lodged in the first case. |
| 05.01.2011 | FIR lodged in the second case. |
| 30.06.2011 | Final report filed in the first case. |
| 31.05.2012 | Final report filed in the second case. |
| 2020 | Transfer Petitions filed by Devendra Kumar Saxena. |
| 20 April 2021 | Supreme Court dismisses the transfer petitions. |
Course of Proceedings
The petitioner filed two transfer petitions seeking to move the criminal cases from the Special CBI Court in Siliguri, Darjeeling, to a court in New Delhi, citing his severe health condition. The co-accused in the first case (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) opposed the transfer, stating they were also aged and in ill health, and a transfer to Delhi would be difficult for them. The CBI also opposed the transfer.
Legal Framework
The charges against the petitioner in the first case include:
- Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with criminal conspiracy.
- Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which pertain to public servants taking illegal gratification and criminal misconduct.
The charges against the petitioner in the second case include:
- Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with abetment.
- Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which relate to criminal misconduct by a public servant and possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income.
Arguments
Arguments by the Petitioner:
- The petitioner, Devendra Kumar Saxena, argued that his severe health condition, including a paralytic attack and brain stroke, rendered him unable to travel and participate effectively in the trial at Darjeeling.
- He contended that his right to a fair trial and the opportunity to defend himself would be meaningless without his active participation, which his health condition prevented.
- The petitioner also argued that the remaining witnesses in the second case were scattered and not local, which would not be a reason to not transfer the case.
Arguments by the Respondents (CBI and Co-accused):
- The CBI contended that the charges against the petitioner were serious, involving corruption.
- The co-accused (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) in the first case argued that they were also aged and suffering from ill health, and that transferring the case to Delhi would cause them significant hardship. They also have a right to a fair trial.
- The CBI pointed out that in the first case, 21 witnesses were to be examined, and none had been examined so far. In the second case, 115 witnesses were to be examined, and 32 had already been examined.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Petitioner | Sub-Submissions by Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Transfer of Cases due to Health Condition |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the criminal cases should be transferred from Darjeeling to New Delhi, considering the petitioner’s health condition and the rights of other co-accused.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the criminal cases should be transferred from Darjeeling to New Delhi, considering the petitioner’s health condition and the rights of other co-accused. | The Court denied the transfer. It held that while the petitioner’s health condition was a concern, the rights of the co-accused to a fair trial also had to be considered. The Court noted that transferring the case would cause hardship to the co-accused. The Court also noted that a significant number of witnesses were yet to be examined. Therefore, the court decided that the transfer cannot be ordered. |
Authorities
The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific case laws or books. However, it implicitly considers the principle of fair trial as a fundamental right for all parties involved.
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Principle of Fair Trial | The court considered the principle of fair trial applicable to both the petitioner and the co-accused, balancing the rights of all parties involved. |
| Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Cited as one of the charges against the petitioner, relating to criminal conspiracy. |
| Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | Cited as the charges against the petitioner, pertaining to public servants taking illegal gratification and criminal misconduct. |
| Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Cited as one of the charges against the petitioner, relating to abetment. |
| Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | Cited as charges against the petitioner, relating to criminal misconduct by a public servant and possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed both transfer petitions. The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s health condition but emphasized that the right to a fair trial extends to all parties involved, including the co-accused. Transferring the case would cause hardship to the co-accused. The Court directed the Trial Court to take note of the petitioner’s health condition and dispense with his personal appearance except when necessary. The Court also suggested that if online participation was permissible, the Special Court could consider allowing the petitioner to participate virtually.
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s health condition warrants transfer. | The Court acknowledged the health condition but did not find it sufficient for transfer, given the rights of co-accused. |
| Co-accused’s hardship if the case is transferred. | The Court considered this valid and a reason not to transfer the case. |
| Need for active participation of the accused for a fair trial. | The Court agreed with the need for active participation but noted that this right applies to all parties, including the co-accused. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court considered the Principle of Fair Trial and held it to be applicable to all parties, including the co-accused.
- The Court considered Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as the charges against the petitioner.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance the petitioner’s health concerns with the fair trial rights of the co-accused. The Court was also concerned about the practical difficulties in transferring a case where a significant number of witnesses were yet to be examined. The Court emphasized that while the petitioner’s health was a valid concern, it could not be the sole factor in deciding the transfer, especially when it would cause hardship to other parties.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fair trial rights of co-accused | 40% |
| Hardship to co-accused due to transfer | 30% |
| Petitioner’s health condition | 20% |
| Practical difficulties in transfer | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court considered the submissions made by the petitioner for transfer of the cases on medical grounds, but also considered the submissions made by the respondents that the co-accused also have a right to fair trial and that they would be put to hardship if the cases are transferred. The Court also considered the number of witnesses yet to be examined.
The Court observed:
“Though one may point out the availability of technology for effective communications between the client and the counsel, the same cannot replace the physical assistance that an accused may be able to render to the defence counsel in a criminal proceeding.”
“If the petitioner is entitled to a fair trial, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also equally entitled to a fair trial.”
“I cannot ask Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the 1st case to travel to Delhi and expect them to defend the case effectively.”
Key Takeaways
- The right to a fair trial is a fundamental right that applies to all parties in a criminal case, not just the accused.
- Medical conditions of an accused, while a valid concern, cannot be the sole basis for transferring a case if it causes hardship to other parties.
- Courts must balance the rights and interests of all parties involved in a case.
- Technology can be used to facilitate participation in court proceedings, but it cannot completely replace physical presence.
Directions
The Trial Court was directed to take note of the petitioner’s health condition and dispense with his personal appearance except when necessary. The Special Court was also given the option to allow the petitioner to participate virtually if online participation was permissible.
Development of Law
This judgment reinforces the principle that the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right that extends to all parties in a criminal case. It clarifies that while the health of an accused is a valid concern, it cannot be the sole basis for transferring a case if it would cause hardship to other parties. This judgment emphasizes the need for courts to balance the rights of all parties involved and to consider the practical implications of their decisions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petitions, emphasizing that the right to a fair trial extends to all parties, including co-accused. The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s health issues but balanced it with the rights of other parties and the practicalities of the case. The Trial Court was directed to accommodate the petitioner’s health condition by dispensing with his personal appearance when possible and considering virtual participation.
Source: Devendra Kumar Saxena vs. CBI