Cases not involving offences under the BUDS Act cannot be transferred to its designated court.

The applicant sought transfer under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2023, State v. Kapil Dev Rathi & Others, pending before the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, to the Court of the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, BUDS Act, Dehradun.

The prosecution concerned offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2005.

The State opposed the transfer, submitting that the trial was already substantially advanced: out of 53 witnesses, 32 had been examined, with the next date fixed for 21 September 2026.

Whether the proceedings involving offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 3 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, 2005 could be transferred to the designated Special Court constituted under Section 8 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019?

Whether sufficient grounds existed under Section 407 CrPC to transfer the substantially progressed trial from Bageshwar to Dehradun, notwithstanding the inconvenience to the local witnesses?

The Court applied Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the High Court to transfer a criminal case where the interests of justice so require.

It considered Section 8 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, under which designated courts are constituted for offences falling within that statute.

The Court held that where the charged offences do not fall under the BUDS Act, 2019, there is no basis for transferring the trial to the Special Judge designated under that Act.

The Court rejected the applicant’s reliance on the designated BUDS Court because the charges in the present case were under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 3 of the 2005 Uttarakhand Depositors Act, and the offence did not fall under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.

Consequently, the existence of a designated BUDS Court at Dehradun did not confer a basis for transferring the case there.

Independently, the Court found that transfer would cause considerable hardship to the complainant and other witnesses, all of whom were local residents of Kapkot, Bageshwar.

The advanced stage of the proceedings—32 of 53 witnesses having already been examined—also militated against transfer.

Since the offences did not fall within the BUDS Act, 2019, and transfer would cause substantial inconvenience to the local witnesses, the application seeking transfer from the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, to the Special Judge, BUDS Act, Dehradun was dismissed.