A witness’s travel hardship alone does not justify transfer where testimony can be recorded virtually.

The petitioner, informant and prosecution witness in G.R. Case No. 473 of 2016, sought transfer of the case from the J.M.F.C., Basudevpur, to the S.D.J.M., Jajpur, under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

She stated that she was a destitute woman residing with her parents in Hasanpur, Jajpur, more than 160 kilometres from Basudevpur, and that a domestic-violence case involving her husband was pending before the S.D.J.M., Jajpur.

The transfer proceeding had remained pending for seven years, and an interim stay had stalled the criminal case.

The trial court reported that the case remained pending and was listed for awaiting intimation from the High Court.

Notice to accused Opposite Party No. 2 had not been returned, and the High Court proceeded in his absence.

1. Whether the petitioner had established sufficient grounds to transfer G.R. Case No. 473 of 2016 from the J.M.F.C., Basudevpur, to the S.D.J.M., Jajpur.

2. Whether the petitioner could be accommodated by giving evidence through video conferencing rather than transferring the case.

Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was the statutory basis for the transfer application.

The Court noted that a complainant who is also a prosecution witness is not ordinarily required to attend each day of the trial and that her presence is required for the limited purpose of giving evidence when called.

It also relied on the availability of video-conferencing facilities and directed that any remote appearance be subject to the applicable rules and guidelines, specifically the High Court of Orissa and District Courts Use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means Rules, 2025.

The petitioner cited Smt. Anusuya Sitha v. State of Orissa & Ors., TRPCRL No. 89 of 2014; the Court found that decision factually dissimilar and inapplicable.

The Court considered the petitioner’s residence, the distance to Basudevpur, and her status as a prosecution witness, but found that these circumstances did not justify transferring the criminal case.

Unlike a party to a matrimonial proceeding, she would not need to attend the day-to-day proceedings; her attendance would generally be required only when she was to testify.

Video conferencing offered a means to address the difficulty of physical attendance without moving the case, and the precedent relied on by the petitioner did not apply on its facts.

Given that the 2016 criminal proceeding had been stalled during the transfer petition, the Court also emphasized its early disposal.

It directed that, if the petitioner’s presence was required to give evidence and she so requested, the J.M.F.C., Basudevpur, could permit her to appear and testify by video conference in accordance with the applicable rules; the court was asked to explore that facility.

The J.M.F.C. was directed to proceed with the case and endeavour to conclude it preferably by the end of June 2027, with the parties to avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The interim order was vacated and the associated interlocutory application disposed of.