/2022 INSC 0791/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) Nos. 333­348/2021
Ketan Kantilal Seth   ……. Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Gujarat & Ors. …….  Respondent(s) 
With I.A. No. 134476 of 2021
O R D E R
1. With   the   consent   of   the   parties,   these   transfer   petitions
have been taken up for final hearing. The present petitions have
been   filed   by   petitioner/accused   for   invoking   the   power   under
Section   406   of   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   ‘ CrPC ’),   seeking   transfer   of   16   criminal   cases
pending   against   him   in   four   different     States   to   one   Court   in
Mumbai,  where  3   cases are already  pending.  Following  are the
cases of which transfer are being sought – 
1

i. Criminal Case No. 101878/2003 arising out of FIR No.
C.R.   No.   I­64/2002,   dated   30.07.2002   registered   at
Police   Station   Udhana,   Surat,   Gujarat,   pending   before
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat;
ii. Criminal   Case   No.   9166/2002   arising   out   of   FIR   No.
I.C.R.   No.   274/2002,   dated   02.07.2002   registered   at
Police   Station   Umra,   Surat,   Gujarat,   pending   before
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat;
iii. Criminal   Case   No.   174/2003   arising   out   of   FIR  No.   C.
R.   No.   I­226/2002,   dated   30.08.2002   registered   at
Police   Station   Rander,   Surat,   Gujarat,   pending   before
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat;
iv. Criminal   Case   No.   100521/2003   arising   out   FIR   No.
274/2002,   dated   06.08.2002   registered   at   Police
Station   Varachha,   Surat,   Gujarat,   pending   before
Additional   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate/Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Surat;
v. Criminal   Case   No.   2778/2004   arising   out   of     FIR/M.
Case No. 3/2002, dated 16.07.2002 registered at Police
2

Station   Gandevi,   Navsari,   Gujarat,   pending   before
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandevi;
vi. Criminal Case No. 6840/2002 arising out of FIR No. I­
93/2002, dated 18.08.2002 registered at Police Station
Navsai   Town,   Navsari,   Gujarat,   pending   before   Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Navsari;
vii. Criminal Case No. 2121/2002 arising out of FIR No. I­
119/2002,   dated   10.06.2002   registered   at   Police
Station   Valsad   City,   Valsad,   Gujarat,   pending   before
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad;
viii. Criminal   Case   No.   1578/2006   arising   out   of   FIR/M.
Case   No.   29/2002,   dated   13.06.2002   registered   at
Police   Station   Vidya   Nagar,   Anand,   Gujarat,   pending
before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand;
ix. Criminal   Case   No.   244/2002   arising   out     of   FIR/M.
Case   No.   22/2002   (C.R.   No.   I­226/2002),   dated
07.06.2002 registered at Police Station Morbi, Gujarat,
pending   before   II   Additional   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,
Morbi; 
3

x. Criminal Case No. 40449/2016 arising out of   FIR No.
280/2002,   dated   04.05.2002   registered   at   Police
Station   Connaught   Place,   New   Delhi,   pending   before
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House
Court, New Delhi;
xi. Criminal   Case   No.   2034203/2016   arising   out   of     FIR
No.   242/2002,   dated   17.06.2002   registered   at   Police
Station Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, pending before Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court, New Delhi;
xii. Criminal   Case   No.   ____/2002   arising   out   of     FIR   No.
298/2002,   dated   22.08.2002   registered   at   Police
Station   Jagatdal,   24   North   Paraganas,   West   Bengal,
pending before Barrackpore Court, Kolkata;
xiii. Criminal   Case   No.   147/2002   arising   out   of   F.I.R.   No.
97/2002,   dated   25.04.2002   and   C.R.   No.   101/2002,
dated   29.04.2002,   both   registered   at   Police   Station
Ganeshpeth,   Nagpur,   Maharashtra,   pending   before
155­II  Additional  Chief Judicial Magistrate First  Class,
Nagpur;
4

xiv. Criminal   Case   No.   847/2002   arising   out   of   F.I.R.   at
C.R.   No.   75/2002,   dated   15.05.2002   registered   at
Police   Station   City   Kotwali,   Amravati,   Maharashtra,
pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati;
xv. Criminal   Case   No.   498/2002   arising   out   of   F.I.R.   at
C.R.   No.   102/2002,   dated   08.05.2002   registered   at
Police   Station   Pimpiri,   Pune,   Maharashtra,   pending
before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pimpri, Pune;
xvi. Criminal   Case   No.   357/2002   arising   out   of   F.I.R.   at
C.R.   No.   65/2002,   dated   15.05.2002   registered   at
Police   Station   Vishrambaug,   Pune,   Maharashtra,
pending   before   III   Judicial   Magistrate   First   Class,
Shivaji Nagar, Pune. 
In fact, the basic object to file these transfer petitions is to get all
cases   transferred   at   one   place   and   may   be   directed   to   try
together. 
2. In a nutshell, the prosecution story in majority of the cases
revolves around one accused company namely M/s Home Trade
Limited,   which   is   alleged   to   have   engaged   in   the   business   of
5

Stock, Securities, Brokering and Trading. The allegations against
the   petitioner   herein   and   one   Sanjay   Hariram   Agarwal   are   that
they   were   the   authorized   signatories   of   the   accused   company
and while acting in the capacity of Directors of the said accused
company,   they   entered   into   several   transactions   dealing   with
government 
securities   and   further   sold   the   said   securities   without   any
authorization.   Further,   it   has   also   been   alleged   that   the
government   securities   were   not   delivered   within   time   and   the
money raised thereby has been misappropriated by the accused
persons including the petitioner herein.
3. During   the   pendency   of   the   instant   petitions,   application
for intervention (bearing I.A. No. 134476 of 2021) has also been
filed   on   behalf   of   one   applicant   namely;     Omprakash   Bhaurao
Kamdi, seeking permission to intervene on the grounds of being
a ‘necessary’ and ‘proper’ party as stated in the application. 
4. Before   adverting   to   merits   of   the   transfer   petitions,   the
application   seeking   intervention   is   being   taken   up   for   disposal.
The intervenor claims to be an agriculturist who is dependent on
6

financial   aid   provided   by   Nagpur   District   Central   Cooperative
Bank Limited (hereinafter referred as NDCCB) for his day­to­day
agricultural activities. It is said Chairman of NDCCB, who lodged
an FIR in 2002 against the petitioner and other accused persons
alleging non­delivery of the government securities worth Rs. 125
crores   which   NDCCB   purchased   through   accused   company   in
which  petitioner   and other  accused persons  were  directors. The
petitioner   also   sought   transfer   of   concerned   trial   in   the   instant
transfer petitions.
5. It is a settled principle of law in criminal jurisprudence that
intervention   application   filed   by   a   third   party   should   not
ordinarily   be   allowed   in   criminal   cases   unless   the   Court   is
satisfied   that   on   the   grounds   on   which   the   person   seeking
intervention   is   directly   or   substantially   related   to   the   case   and
question of law which may affect him adversely; or in the opinion
of Court, joining the intervenor in the case is expedient in public
interest. Having perused the contents of intervention application,
nothing   is   averred   in   the   application,   how   non­joining   of
applicant  may  cause  prejudice  or  affect  the  public  interest.  The
7

applicant  is  neither   a  complainant   in  any  of  the  cases  of  which
transfer   is   being   sought,   nor   he   has   any   direct   involvement   or
ground   of     his   joining   in   public   interest.   The   intervenor   has   no
locus   to intervene in the present petition, therefore, I am of the
opinion that the grounds as mentioned by the intervenor are not
proper     to   allow   the   application.   It   is   to   observe   that   prayer   in
the present petition 
is   confined   to   transfer   the   criminal   trials   pending   before   Trial
Courts  in different States for trial by one Court in one State and
in       such  circumstances,  the  prayer  for  intervention     cannot  be
allowed   for   reasons   mentioned   above.   Consequently,   I.A.   No.
134476 of 2021 seeking intervention stands dismissed.  
6. Reverting   to   the   merits   of   the   transfer   petitions,   learned
counsel   for   petitioner   has   contended   that   multiple   FIRs   were
registered   against   petitioner   and   other   accused   persons   in
different   States   having   similar   set   of   allegations,   which   has   led
into multiple trials being pending before various   Trial Courts in
different States for adjudication. Most of the accused persons in
all   FIRs   and   witnesses   thereof   are     common.   However,   for   the
8

purpose of trial, all the accused as well witnesses have to attend
hearing   dates   before   various     Courts   leading   to   delay   and   huge
expenses.   Moreover,   most   of   the   transactions   pertaining   to   the
alleged offence have taken place in Mumbai, Maharashtra and as
per   the   chart   supplied   by   the   petitioner,   majority   of   the
witnesses relevant for the purpose of trial are also from Mumbai.
However,   the   petitioner   has   prayed   the   transfer   of   all   cases   for
trial by one 
Court   primarily   on   the   grounds   of   convenience,   expeditious
disposal   and   no­prejudice   may   be   caused   to   the   defence   of   the
accused for fair trial and to secure ends of justice.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent has opposed
the   transfer   petitions   primarily   on   the   ground   that   the   transfer
petitions   have   been   filed   belatedly.   It   has   been   contended   that,
High   Court   of   Bombay   vide   order   dated   24.06.2021   passed   in
Criminal Application No. 628/2014, directed the concerned Trial
Court to complete the trial in C.C. No. 147/2002 (i.e. one of the
cases  of which transfer  is being  sought  in  the  instant  petitions)
by passing final judgment and order within a maximum period of
9

four months. The proceedings in the said case are already at the
final stage. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner seeking transfer of
cases as mentioned deserves to be dismissed.
8. After   having   heard   both   the   sides,   the   primary   issue   for
consideration   before   this   Court   is   ‘ Whether   the   criminal   cases
pending   before   different   Trial   Courts   in   four   States   can   be
transferred   to   one   Trial   Court   in   one   State?;   Whether   transfer   of
case of one of the criminal case which is at the final stage of trial
before   concerned   Court   in   Nagpur,   can   be   directed   to   be
transferred at such belated stage? ’
9. To answer the aforesaid questions, first of all it is necessary
to know the underlying intention of Section 406 of CrPC. Section
406   deals   with   the   power   of   Supreme   Court   to   transfer   the
cases.   The   Court   can   exercise   such   power   for   fair   trial   and   to
secure   the   ends   of   justice.   The   language   impliedly   left   the
transfer of the cases on the discretion of the Court. If the Court
is   satisfied   that   it   is   imperative   to   transfer   the   cases   in   the
interest of justice or to secure ends of justice,  then it may do so.
10

10. In   the   instant   case,   it   is   not   in   dispute   that   since   2002,
multiple FIRs across four States namely; Gujarat, Maharashtra,
New   Delhi   and   West   Bengal   have   been   filed   against   petitioner
and   other   accused   persons   containing   broad   and   common
allegations   pertaining   to   act   done   in   collusion   by   accused
persons   to   defraud   the   complainants   and   misappropriate   the
money   raised   thereby   while   dealing/trading   in   government
securities   in   the   name   of   accused   company   M/s   Home   Trade
Limited. The State in its counter affidavit has stated that during
investigation, the accused 
Company   was   found   not   to   be   eligible   to   deal   in   transactions
relating   to   government   securities,  whereas,  petitioner   and  other
accused  person  namely  Sanjay  Hariram   Agarwal  were  acting   as
Directors and authorized signatories of accused Company. From
a   bare   perusal   of   the   facts   and   FIRs,   it   is   seen   that   there   is
commonality   of   facts   in   each   FIR   and   that   most   of   the
transactions   have   taken   place   in   Mumbai.   Further,   the   FIRs
mainly have petitioner and Sanjay Hariram Agarwal as common
accused persons. 
11

11. As per the details provided by petitioner in a chart annexed
with   petition,   out   of   all   the   nineteen   FIRs   registered   against
petitioner   and   other   accused   persons,   one   FIR   has   been
registered   in   Kolkata,   West   Bengal;   two   FIRs   are   registered   in
Delhi;   nine   FIRs   are   registered   in   different   districts   of   Gujarat
and   seven   FIRs   are   registered   in   different   districts   of
Maharashtra.   Furthermore,   as   stated   by   petitioner   and
unrefuted by respondent State, out of total 689 witnesses in all
nineteen   cases   pending   before   respective   Trial   Courts,   236
witnesses   are   from   Mumbai.   It   is   further   not   disputed   that   in
multiple cases, almost 20 years have lapsed and 
yet   majority   of   the   trials   are   pending   at   the   initial   stage.   It
wouldn’t be out of place to mention that primary reason for such
delay   is   the   multiplicity   of   proceedings   alongwith   practical
difficulties for the Trial Court to secure the presence of witnesses
as well as accused for concluding the trial. 
12. The contention of the State that prejudice will be caused if
the   transfer   is  allowed  at   such  a   belated  stage  when   one   of   the
criminal   proceedings   is   at   the   final   stage   is   bereft   of   merit.   At
12

this juncture, it is apt to refer order dated 24.06.2021 passed by
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No.
628/2021   filed   by   accused   Sanjay   Hariram   Agarwal   seeking
transfer   of   criminal   cases   pending   against   him.   The   same   is
reproduced for ready reference as thus:
“ …… (ii)   We   direct   that   the   trial   in   said   C.C.   No.
147/2002   (Crime   No.   101/2002   registered   with
Ganesh   Peth   Police   Station,   Nagpur)   be   completed
by   passing   final   judgment   and   order   within
maximum   period   of   four   months   from   today.   We
make   it   clear   that   we   are   granting   maximum   four
months’ time in view of Covid­19 restrictions……..
(iii)  We make it clear that   after completion of trial in
said   C.C.   No.   147/2002   (Crime   No.   101/2002
registered with Ganesh Peth Police Station, Nagpur)
against other accused except the Applicant , the trial
against   Applicant   be   commenced   by   conducting   the
same   expeditiously   and   preferably   on   day­to­day
basis and the same be completed within a period of
four   months   after   commencement   of   trial   against
present Applicant. ”
As   is   evident   from   the   aforesaid   order,   the   High   Court   directed
completion   of   trial   in   C.C.   No.   147/2002   in   a   time   bound
13

manner against other accused persons except the applicant i.e.,
Sanjay  Hariram   Agarwal   (accused   no.   3  in   C.C.  No.   147/2002).
The High Court further directed that once the trial against other
accused   persons   is   completed,   then   only   trial   against   applicant
therein shall commence. The High Court effectively split the trial
of   other   accused   persons   from   trial   of   Sanjay   Hariram   Agarwal
and   caused   serious   prejudice.   As   is   gathered   from   the   records
and   also   stated   above,   accused   Sanjay   Hariram   Agarwal
alongwith   petitioner   herein   were   acting   in   the   capacity   of   the
Directors   of   accused   company.   The   person   who   could   have   put
the best defence (oral as well as documentary) before Trial Court
where   evidence   led   by   prosecution   was   common   and   mostly
related   to   same   transaction,   was   effectively   excluded   by   the
order   of   High   Court.   In   my   considered   view,   such   an   approach
taken   by   High   Court   is   prima­facie   amounts   to   differential
treatment,   causing   serious   prejudice   to   the   right   of   fair   trial   of
other accused persons including the petitioner herein.
13. In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   considering   the
common nature of allegations raised against the petitioner in all
14

FIRs   and   criminal   proceedings   emanating   therefrom   which   are
yet pending before respective Trial Courts in four States, I am of
the   opinion   that   to   meet   the   ends   of   justice   and   fair   trial,   the
transfer   petitions   deserve   to   be   allowed.   Therefore,   the   instant
transfer petitions are  disposed­off with the following directions:–
a) The   criminal   cases,   as   specified   in   para   1   (clause   (i)   to
(xvi))   of   this   order   shall   be   transferred   from   the   courts,
where those are pending, to the court of Principal Judge,
Bombay   City   Civil   and   Sessions   Court,   Fort,   Mumbai   –
400032, Maharashtra;
b) the   Principal   Judge   is   at   liberty   to   assign   the   cases   to
any   of   the   Court     situated   in   his   jurisdiction   to   try   all
those   cases.     He   is   also   at   liberty   to   assign   some  of   the
cases to any other courts also, if necessary;
c) it   is   further   directed   that   the   transferor   courts   shall
immediately   transmit   the   record   of   concerned   cases   to
the   Principal   Judge,   Bombay   City   Civil   and   Sessions
Court,   Fort,   Mumbai   –   400032,   which   should   reach   on
or before 31.10.2022; 
15

d) all   the   accused   in   the   concerned   cases   shall   appear
before   the   Principal   Judge,   Bombay   City   Civil   and
Sessions Court, Fort, Mumbai  on 14.11.2022;
e) on assignment of those cases to the concerned Court(s),
as directed hereinabove, the said Court(s) shall frame the
charges   within   a   period   of   two   months   from   the   date   of
appearance,   or   on     securing   presence   of   the   accused
persons, if absent; and thereafter  the trial be concluded
as expeditiously as possible, not later than two years. It
is   needless   to   observe   that   the   examination   of   the
witnesses   in   all   cases   will   be   recorded   by   the   Court(s)
separately, thereby it should not cause any prejudice  to
any accused.
      .….………………………J.
                                                (J.K. MAHESHWARI)
New Delhi;
September 9, 2022.
16