| Headnote |
Constitution of India/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Art. 32/s.406 – Petition u/Art. 32 read with s. 406 – Maintainability of – On facts, various criminal cases filed against sitting MLA from Mau District, UP – Ten criminal cases pending trial against him, transferred to Special Court and accused lodged in District Jail, Banda, UP, pursuant to order of Special Judge – Meanwhile case registered against accused in District Mohali, Punjab u/ss. 386 and 506 IPC – Pursuant to the issuance of production warrant, Superintendent of District Jail, Banda, UP, without permission from the Court of Special Judge (MPs/MLAs), Allahabad gave custody of the accused to the Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, Punjab – Thereafter, on passing of remand order, accused lodged in District Jail, Roopnagar, Punjab, and since then, he is continuing in the said jail – For last two years, number of warrants issued for production of accused before the various Courts in UP but Jail Authorities, Roopnagar, Punjab refused to give custody on the pretext that the accused was unwell – Writ Petition u/Art. 32 rw s. 406 by State of UP seeking directions to the State of Punjab and Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, Punjab, to transfer the criminal proceedings and trial in the criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, to the Court of Special Judge (MP/ MLA), Allahabad, UP, and directions to Jail Superintendent, Roopnagar and State of Punjab to handover the custody of the accused from Roopnagar Jail, District Ropar, Punjab to District Jail Banda, UP – Held: The State, being a prosecuting agency in the Criminal Administration, is vitally interested in such administration, as such, the State is considered as a “party interested” within the meaning of Sub-Section (2) of s. 406 and petition u/s. 406 is maintainable – However, relief sought for transfer of the case is not granted, since in the criminal case on the file of Police Station Mathaur, District Mohali, Punjab, no final report is filed bythe Police and it is at the stage of investigation and as such, s. 406 Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed into service – As regards, the transfer from one prison to another, a convict or an undertrial prisoner, who disobeys the law of the land, cannot oppose his transfer from one prison to another – Courts are not to be a helpless bystander, when the rule of law is being challenged with impunity – Arms of law are long enough to remedy the situation – In such situations, this Court can exercise power u/Art. 142 to order transfer of prisoner from one prison to another, thus, issuance of directions to the Jail Superintendent Roopnagar and State of Punjab, to handover custody of the accused to the State of UP, within a period of two weeks, so as to lodge him in District Jail, Banda in UP where the Jail Authorities would extend the necessary medical facilities to accused. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 406 – Power under – Words “party interested” – Interpretation of – Held: s. 406 confers power on this Court to transfer of cases and appeals on the application filed by the Attorney-General of India or by a party interested – In the criminal administration system, State is the prosecuting agency, working for and on behalf of the people of the State, as such the State can be said to be a party interested within the meaning of s. 406(2) of the Code – Words “party interested” are of a wide import and, thus, have to be interpreted by giving a wider meaning – Statute must be interpreted to advance the cause of the Statute and not to defeat the same – Interpretation of statutes. |
