High Court May Exercise Inherent Powers to Sustain Trial Transfer for Judicial Continuity and Proper Evidence Appreciation

The opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 408 Cr.P.C. to transfer Session Trial No. 2707 of 2024 from the Court of Special Judge ATS to the Court of Special Judge Gangsters Act

The grounds for transfer were that the previous Presiding Officer, Shri Abhinay Kumar Mishra, had recorded the testimony of nine prosecution witnesses before being transferred to the Gangsters Act Court within the same Sessions Division

The Sessions Judge, Lucknow, allowed the transfer on 29.06.2026 to ensure judicial continuity and proper appreciation of evidence

The applicant-complainant challenged this order via Section 407 Cr.P.C., arguing that Section 326 Cr.P.C. mandates the successor judge to continue the trial and does not require transferring the case to the previous judge's new court

1. Whether a Sessions Judge is legally permitted to transfer a trial to a different court within the same division solely because the new court is presided over by the officer who recorded a substantial portion of the evidence

2. Whether an order allowing a transfer under Section 408 Cr.P.C. can be challenged by an aggrieved party under Section 407 Cr.P.C. or if it requires the invocation of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Section 408 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers a Sessions Judge to transfer a case between criminal courts in their division if "expedient for the ends of justice"

Section 326 Cr.P.C., which allows a successor judge to act on evidence recorded by a predecessor to ensure speedy trials

While Section 407 Cr.P.C. provides for transfers by the High Court, an order granting a transfer under Section 408 is properly challenged under the inherent powers preserved by Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process

Punjab Singh v. State of U.P. (1983) regarding the right of an accused to have a case decided by the judge who heard the evidence

Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) regarding the scope of Section 482

The Court clarified that although Section 326 Cr.P.C. allows a successor to continue a trial, it does not bar a transfer back to the original presiding officer if they are still within the same Sessions Division and such a move serves the "ends of justice"

The Court reasoned that the Presiding Officer who recorded the testimony of PW-1 to PW-9 had the unique advantage of observing the witnesses' demeanor, which is crucial for the proper appreciation of evidence

The Court observed that since both the transferor and transferee courts possessed competent jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Sessions Judge’s discretion was exercised reasonably to promote judicial economy and continuity

Furthermore, while the applicant incorrectly filed under Section 407, the Court elected to treat the matter under its Section 482 jurisdiction but found no "abuse of process" or "injustice" in the Sessions Judge's order

The Court affirmed that such a transfer is expedient for the ends of justice as it allows the judge who observed witness demeanors to conclude the trial

The High Court declined to interfere under its inherent powers as the impugned order did not result in an abuse of the process of law