Supreme Court Refuses Transfer of Case, Emphasizes Fair Prosecution: Sunil Saini & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 30 January 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 7152

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna

Can a criminal case be transferred to another state simply because the petitioners allege a biased prosecution and witness intimidation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a transfer petition filed by individuals who were victims of violence during an agitation in Haryana. The Court ultimately refused to transfer the case, emphasizing the importance of fair prosecution and the State’s duty to protect its citizens. This case highlights the delicate balance between ensuring justice and respecting the established legal processes within a state. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

In 2016, members of the Jat community in Haryana organized an agitation seeking reservation in government jobs and educational institutions. During this agitation, acts of vandalism and arson were allegedly committed, causing significant damage to the petitioners’ properties, including their homes and godowns. The petitioners alleged that an influential advocate, who was also a former President of the Bar, was involved in these acts. They further claimed that this advocate’s influence led to witnesses turning hostile and material evidence not being placed on record.

The petitioners also stated that an application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to summon the advocate and his son was not countersigned by the Public Prosecutor. This led the petitioners to seek a transfer of their case to another state, believing they would not receive justice in Haryana.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners initially filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to summon the advocate and his son, but this was not countersigned by the Public Prosecutor and subsequently rejected. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court seeking a transfer of the case. The High Court upheld the rejection of the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily references Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the power of a court to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offense. The Court also implicitly refers to the fundamental principle that the State is responsible for protecting the lives and properties of its citizens, which is a cornerstone of the rule of law and the basis of a civilized state, as well as the basic structure of the Constitution.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that they would not receive justice in Haryana due to the pervasive influence of the Jat community and the alleged involvement of a powerful advocate.
• They claimed that material witnesses had been forced to turn hostile and that crucial documentary evidence had not been placed on record.
• They highlighted that the Public Prosecutor did not countersign their application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to summon the advocate and his son, which they viewed as evidence of bias.
• They submitted that there was a complete breakdown of law and order, resulting in significant damage and loss of life.
• The petitioners also raised concerns about receiving threats and not being provided with adequate protection despite requests.
• They requested the appointment of an independent Special Prosecutor and the recalling of previously examined witnesses.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The State of Haryana argued that a Public Prosecutor had been appointed on 13.05.2022, who had extensive experience in handling serious criminal cases, including those under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The State pointed out that there were no allegations against the appointed Public Prosecutor.
• The State also highlighted the existence of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, and stated that only one request for protection had been received.
• The State submitted that due to the passage of time and the fact that 42 witnesses had already been examined, the case should not be transferred.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue was whether the case should be transferred out of Haryana due to concerns about fair trial and witness safety.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any cases or books. However, it implicitly relies on the fundamental principles of the rule of law and the State’s duty to protect its citizens. The court also references the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court acknowledged the importance of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018* and directed the petitioners to utilize it. The Court considered the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973* but did not make any specific observations on it.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the advanced stage of the trial, with 42 witnesses already examined. The Court also considered the recent appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor and his credentials. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair and impartial prosecution and the State’s duty to protect its citizens and witnesses. The Court also focused on the fact that the petitioners had recourse to the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the petitioners’ concerns but balanced them against the progress of the trial and the mechanisms already in place for witness protection and fair prosecution. The Court did not find sufficient grounds to transfer the case at this stage, emphasizing that the judicial process should be allowed to proceed.

The Court observed, “The State exists on the basis of implied consent of the Governed. The principal reason for people to come together under the organization of the state is the fundamental principle that the State will be in a position to always protect the lives and properties of the citizens.”

The Court further stated, “The principal mechanism for vindicating the rule of law and upholding the rights of the citizens is the judicial branch of the State. One of the fundamental methods by which Rule of law is preserved consists of sanctions of which the criminal law is the principal branch.”

The Court also noted, “The role of the Public Prosecutor in all of this is paramount. He is duty bound to always act in a fair manner; not of course, to secure conviction by hook or crook but at the same time, it is his duty to fearlessly adduce evidence so that those who are guilty do not get away scot free.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court will not readily transfer a criminal case, especially when a significant number of witnesses have already been examined.
• The Court emphasizes the importance of a fair and impartial prosecution and the role of the Public Prosecutor.
• The State has a duty to protect the lives and properties of its citizens, and this includes providing protection to witnesses.
• Petitioners have recourse to approach the Director of Prosecution if they believe the Special Public Prosecutor is not acting fairly.
• The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, is a crucial mechanism for protecting witnesses.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

1. The petitioners can approach the Director of Prosecution if they believe the Special Public Prosecutor is not discharging his duties fairly.
2. The Director of Prosecution is to look into the matter and take appropriate steps.
3. The petitioners can seek witness protection from the presiding Judge, Special Public Prosecutor, or Superintendent of Police.
4. The Court’s observations in the judgment shall not stand in the way of the Court taking a decision on the basis of the evidence and on the basis of law applicable.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the existing principles of the rule of law, the State’s duty to protect its citizens, and the importance of a fair and impartial prosecution. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court disposed of the transfer petition, refusing to transfer the case out of Haryana. The Court emphasized the importance of fair prosecution, witness protection, and the State’s duty to uphold the rule of law. While the Court did not find sufficient grounds to transfer the case at this stage, it provided the petitioners with avenues to address their concerns about the fairness of the proceedings and witness safety. The judgment underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring justice while respecting the established legal processes within a state.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Transfer of Cases
• Fair Trial
• Witness Protection
• Public Prosecutor
• Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FAQ

Q: Why did the Supreme Court refuse to transfer the case?

A: The Supreme Court refused to transfer the case primarily because 42 witnesses had already been examined, and the trial was at an advanced stage. The Court also noted the recent appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor and his credentials.

Q: What should I do if I am a witness and feel threatened?

A: You can approach the presiding Judge, Special Public Prosecutor, or the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District seeking protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

Q: What if I feel that the Public Prosecutor is not acting fairly?

A: You can approach the Director of Prosecution if you believe that the Special Public Prosecutor is not discharging his duties in a fair and impartial manner.

Q: What is the role of the Public Prosecutor in a criminal case?

A: The Public Prosecutor is duty-bound to act fairly and impartially, not to secure conviction by any means, but to ensure that the guilty are punished and the innocent are exonerated.