/2023 INSC 0671/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.          OF 2023
 [D.NO. 33197 OF 2022]
IN
TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOs. 333­348/2021 
Ketan   Kantilal Seth …..Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Gujarat and Ors.     …..Respondents
   WITH
M.A. NO. 1935 OF 2022 IN T.P. (CRL.)  NOs.     333­348     OF 2021
O R D E R
J. K. Maheshwari, J.
1. In   the   instant   case,   I.A.   No.   156023/2022   and   Miscellaneous
Application   No.   1935/2022   have   been   filed   seeking   modification/recall   of
order dated 09.09.2022 passed by this Court in Transfer Petition (Criminal)
Nos.   333­348   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘Transfer   Petition’),   whereby,   this
Court   allowed   the   said   petition   filed   by   Petitioner/accused   Ketan   Kantilal
Seth and directed the  transfer  of  pending  matters as prayed by him in the
12023 INSC 671

petition to the Court of Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil and
Sessions Court, Fort, Mumbai – 400032, Maharashtra. 
2. For   ready   reference,   reliefs   as   sought   in   the   aforesaid   two
applications   moved   at   the   instance   of   intervenor   namely
‘Omprakash   Bhauraoji   Kamdi’   and   ‘Respondent   No.   12/State   of
Maharashtra’ are reproduced as thus – 
I. I.A.   No.   156023/2022   –   Application   filed   on
29.09.2022   by   intervenor   for   ‘modification/recall’   of
order dated 09.09.2022;
Prayer   –   a.   Recall/modify  the  order  dated  09.09.2022
passed   by   this   Hon’ble   Court   in   Transfer   Petition   (Crl.)
Nos.   333­348   of   2021   and   transferring   all   the   Trials
pending   against   the   Petitioner   including   the   trial   in
R.C.C. No. 147/2002 pending before  Ld. 2 nd
  Additional
Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,   Nagpur   which   is   already
concluded by the Ld. Trial Court;
b.   pass   such   other   order(s)   and   further
order/direction(s)   as   is   deemed   just   and   proper   in   the
facts and circumstances of the case.
II. Miscellaneous   Application   No.   1935/2022   –
Application   filed   on   26.10.2022   by   Respondent   No.
2

12/State   of   Maharashtra   seeking   ‘modification/recall’
of order dated 09.09.2022.
Prayer   –   a.   Recall/modify the  order dated  09.09.2022
passed   by   this   Hon’ble   Court   in   the   present   Transfer
Petition,   transferring   all   the   pending   trials   against   the
Petitioner   most   of   which   are   already   at   final   stage   of
hearing by the Ld. Trial Court;
b.   pass   any   additional   order(s)   and   subsequent
order/direction(s)   considered   reasonable   and   proper   in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Before   adverting   to   the   contentions   made   in   the   case,   it
would   be   relevant   to   mention   the   brief   backdrop   of   the
proceedings/orders passed by this Court during the pendency of
the Transfer Petition which ultimately led to the filing of the two
applications   by   the   intervenor   and   Respondent   No.   12/State   of
Maharashtra respectively. The same is reproduced as thus – 
i. 18.08.2021   –   Accused   Ketan   Kantilal   Seth   filed
Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos. 333­348/2021 before
this   Court.   In   the   said   petition,   alongside   State   of
Gujarat,   State   of  West   Bengal,   Government   of   NCT  of
Delhi   and   respective   co­accused   persons   involved   in
3

the   trials,   State   of   Maharashtra   was   also   arrayed   as
Respondent No. 12.
ii. 09.09.2021  – This Court issued notice in the Transfer
Petition   and   directed   the   other   co­accused   persons
arrayed as respondents to be served.
iii. 05.10.2021   –   This   Court   granted   ‘stay’   on   further
proceedings   in   R.C.C.   No.   147/2002   (main   matter   in
question). 
iv. 18.10.2021   –   One   Omprakash   Bhauraoji   Kamdi   (the
intervenor),   filed   I.A.   No.   134476/2021   seeking
intervention   in   the   Transfer   Petition   primarily   on   the
ground   that   he   was   an   agriculturist   and   was   by   and
large dependent on the financial aid of Nagpur District
Central   Co­operative   Bank   Limited   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   NDCCB   Ltd.),   which   was   one   of   the
banks allegedly defrauded by the accused.
v. 13.05.2022   –   Stay   granted   by   this   Court   vide   order
dated 05.10.2021 was modified on the pretext that the
proceedings   in   R.C.C.   No.   147/2002   are   at   the   stage
of   final   arguments.   Considering   the   same,   this   Court
4

directed   the   Trial   Court   to   complete   the   hearing   of
arguments,   though,   restrained   it   from
delivering/pronouncing the judgment in the said case.
vi. 22.07.2022   – With  the  consent  of all  the  parties, the
Transfer Petition was heard finally, and the order was
reserved. 
vii. 09.09.2022   –  The  Transfer   Petition   of   accused  Ketan
Kantilal   Seth   was   allowed   while   dismissing   the
intervention   application   of   intervenor   and   the   cases
were  accordingly   transferred   to   the  Court   of  Principal
Judge,   Bombay   City   Civil   and   Sessions   Court,   Fort,
Mumbai – 400032, Maharashtra. 
viii. 29.09.2022   –   Intervenor   Omprakash   Bhauraoji
Kamdi   filed   I.A.   No.   156023/2022   seeking
‘modification/recall’   of   the   order   dated   09.09.2022
with other prayers as mentioned above.
ix. 26.10.2022   –   Respondent   No.   12/State   of
Maharashtra   filed   Miscellaneous   Application   No.
1935/2022   seeking   ‘modification/recall’   of   the   order
dated 09.09.2022 with other prayers primarily  on the
5

ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to
the   State   on   the   day   of   final   hearing   to   oppose   the
Transfer Petition.
x. 10.11.2022   –   Review   Petition   bearing   Diary   No.
36121/2022   was   filed   on   behalf   of
Respondent/Accused   Nos.   20,   23,   25,   26,   30,   31,   32
and   34   titled   as   ‘Ghanshyam   Lahanuji   Mudgal   and
others.   Vs.   Ketan   Kantilal   Seth   and   others’   seeking
review of order dated 09.09.2022, which is pending.
4. This   Court   as   mentioned   above,   allowed   the   Transfer
Petition   (Criminal)   Nos.   333­348   of   2021   vide   final   order   dated
09.09.2022 and issued following directions in paragraph 13 – 
“13.   In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   considering   the
common   nature   of   allegations   raised   against   the
petitioner in all 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
petitioners 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,
6

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;
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.”
7

5. We   now   proceed   to   refer   the   contentions   as   raised   by
intervenor and State of Maharashtra during hearing. 
6. Mr.   Mahesh   Jethmalani,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing
on   behalf   of   intervenor   in   I.A.   No.   156023/2022   primarily
contested   the   application   on   the   merits   of   the   Transfer   Petition
and   stated  that   the  petition   was   filed  by   accused   Ketan   Kantilal
Seth with an ulterior motive to de­rail and delay the trials which
are pending against him since almost 20 years in different States.
He  further  contended  that,  allowing  of  the  Transfer  Petition  vide
order   dated   09.09.2022   has   led   to   de­novo   trial   of   R.C.C.   No.
147/2002   and   in   fact,   this   Court   has   effectively   set­aside   the
order   dated   24.06.2021   passed   by   Bombay   High   Court   in
Criminal   Application   No.   628/2021   vide   which   the   Trial   Court
was directed to conclude the trial in R.C.C. No. 147/2002 within
specified   time,   wherein   hearing   stood   concluded,   though
judgment was not pronounced by Trial Court in view of the order
dated 13.05.2022 of this Court. While closing the arguments, the
learned   senior   counsel   submitted   that   such   transfer  of  cases   by
this   Court   has   effectually   led   to   an   adverse   effect   on   the   whole
8

efforts of all the stakeholders involved who have been in pursuit
of justice since more than 20 years.  
7. Mr.   Tushar   Mehta,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   State   of   Maharashtra,   contested   M.A.   No.   1935/2022
and   sought   recall/modification   of   the   order   dated   09.09.2022
predominantly on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was
given to the State on the date when the matter was finally heard
and same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. It
was   further   contended   that,   had   there   being   any   opportunity
given   to   the   State,   all   the   development   of   the   proceedings   in
respective   Courts   would   have   been   brought   to   the   notice   of   this
Court. Learned senior counsel also laid emphasis on the fact that
in view of the directions issued in paragraph 13(e), the trials are
required   to   be   started   from   the   stage   of   framing   of   charge.   It   is
said   that,   as   per   order   dated   13.05.2022   of   this   Court,
arguments   were   heard   in   R.C.C.   No.   147/2002   by   155­II,
Additional   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,   First   Class,   Nagpur   and
only the judgment is to be pronounced. Therefore, it was prayed
that the order dated 09.09.2022 may be modified to the extent by
which   de­novo   trial   of   that   case   may   be   avoided.   To   fortify   his
9

prayer,   emphasis   was   laid   on   the   order   of   this   Court   dated
29.11.2022   in   the   instant   applications,   by   which   the   transfer   of
the   R.C.C.  No.  147/2002  was  kept  in  abeyance,  and   it  was  also
directed that fresh trial shall not commence in the said case. 
8. Per   contra,   Mr.   Vikas   Singh,   learned   senior   counsel
appearing on behalf of accused Ketan Kantilal Seth, vociferously
opposed   both   the   applications   and   submitted   that   the   Transfer
Petition was heard by consent of the parties and the submissions
made   before   this   Court   are   mere   reiterations   and   purely   an
attempt   to   re­open   the   case   for   hearing   on   merits   which   is   not
permissible   as   per   Order   XII   Rule   3   of   Supreme   Court   Rules,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Supreme Court Rules”). Further,
he   contended   that   the   submission   of   State   of   Maharashtra   with
respect to not granting opportunity of hearing at the time of final
hearing of Transfer Petition is not correct because all the parties
were represented, and appearance has been marked in the order
dated   22.07.2022   of   this   Court   while   closing   hearing   and
reserving the case for order. Learned senior counsel also disputed
the   locus   of   intervenor   Omprakash   Bhauraoji   Kamdi   and   drew
our   attention   to   the   application   submitted   by   intervenor   before
10

this   Court   in   contrast   to   the   affidavit   filed   by   intervenor   before
Bombay   High   Court   Criminal   Application   No.   628/2021   to
demonstrate   his   contradictory   stand.   Our   attention   was
specifically   drawn   to   the   fact   that   in   affidavit   filed   by   said
intervenor   before   Bombay   High   Court,   he   has   claimed   to   be   a
member of NDCCB Ltd. which is in complete contravention to his
stand   before   this   Court.   In   the   order   dated   09.09.2022,   this
Court made it clear that the applicant does not have any locus to
contest   the   Transfer   Petition   and   hence,   the   intervenor   at   the
very   outset   has   to   prove   his   locus   and   his   claim   to   be   a   poor
agriculturist   dependent   on   the   NDCCB   Ltd.   for   financial   aid   is
misplaced. Lastly, it is urged that the Judge in Nagpur who was
trying   case   R.C.C.   No.   147/2002   before   whom   the   arguments
were   advanced   and   hearing   took   place,   has   already   been
transferred   to   Pune   and   hence,   the   contention   of   Mr.   Tushar
Mehta, learned senior counsel that hearing  is already  concluded
is of no relevance now.
9. Furthermore, in response to the reply to the stand taken by
accused   persons   who   were   arrayed   as   Respondent   Nos.   20,   23,
25,   26,   30,   31,   32   and   34   in   the   instant   matter,   it   has   been
11

submitted that they  have already  filed Review Petition [as stated
in   Para   3   (x)   above]   seeking   review   of   order   dated   09.09.2022.
Therefore,   they   may   take   the   recourse   by   pursuing   pending
review petition. 
10. Heard   learned   counsels   for   the   parties   and   perused   the
material available on record. At this juncture, it is apt to produce
relevant   provision   of   Order   XII   of   the   Supreme   Court   Rules,
which reads as thus: 
“ 3. Subject to the provisions contained in Order XLVII of
these rules, a judgment pronounced by the Court or by a
majority   of   the   Court   or   by   a   dissenting   Judge   in   open
Court shall not afterwards be altered or added to, save
for   the   purpose   of   correcting   a   clerical   or   arithmetical
mistake   or   an   error   arising   from   any   accidental   slip   or
omission. ”
11. By the aforesaid, it is clear that any alternation or addition
to a judgment pronounced by Court can be made only to correct
a   clerical   or   arithmetical   mistake   or   an   error   arising   out   of   an
accidental slip or omission. It is well settled that any application
filed   on   the   pretext   of   ‘clarification/addition’   while   evading   the
recourse   of   review,   ought   not   to   be   entertained   and   should   be
12

discouraged.   The   time   and   again,   this   Court   has   deprecated
such   practice   and   lately   in   ‘Supertech   Limited   Vs.   Emerald
Court   Owner   Resident   Welfare   Association   &   Ors.,
(Miscellaneous Application No. 1572 of 2021 in Civil Appeal
No.   5041   of   2021)’   while   answering   the   issue   on   similar
Miscellaneous   Application   filed   for   ‘clarification/modification’,
this Court observed as thus – 
“ 8.   In   successive   decisions,   this   Court   has   held   that   the
filing   of   applications   styled   as   “miscellaneous
applications:   or   “applications   for
clarification/modification” in the guise of a review cannot
be   countenanced.   In   Gurdip   Singh   Uban   (supra 1
) ,
Justice   M   Jagannadha   Rao,   speaking   for   a   two­Judge
Bench of this Court observed:
“17 .   We   next   come   to   applications   described   as
applications  for “clarification”, “modification”  or “recall”  of
judgments or orders finally passed. We may point out that
under   the   relevant   Rule   XL   of   the   Supreme   Court   Rules,
1966   a   review   application   has   first   to   go   before   the
learned Judges in circulation and it will be for the Court to
consider  whether  the  application  is   to   be  rejected   without
giving   an   oral   hearing   or   whether   notice   is   to   be   issued.
Order   XL   Rule   3   states   as   follows:   “3.   Unless   otherwise
ordered   by   the   Court,   an   application   for   review   shall   be
disposed of by circulation without any oral arguments, but
the   petitioner   may   supplement   his   petition   by   additional
written   arguments.   The   Court   may   either   dismiss   the
1  (2000) 7 SCC 296
13

petition   or   direct   notice   to   the   opposite   party....”   In   case
notice   is   issued,   the   review   petition   will   be   listed   for
hearing, after notice is served. This procedure is meant to
save the time of the Court and to preclude frivolous review
petitions   being   filed   and   heard   in   open   court.   However,
with   a   view   to   avoid   this   procedure   of   “no   hearing”,   we
find   that   sometimes   applications   are   filed   for
“clarification”,   “modification”   or   “recall”   etc.   not   because
any   such   clarification,   modification   is   indeed   necessary
but   because   the   applicant   in   reality   wants   a   review   and
also wants a hearing, thus avoiding listing of the same in
chambers by way of circulation. Such applications, if they
are   in   substance   review   applications,   deserve   to   be
rejected   straight   away   inasmuch   as   the   attempt   is
obviously to bypass Order XL Rule 3 relating to circulation
of   the   application   in   chambers   for   consideration   without
oral   hearing.   By   describing   an   application   as   one   for
“clarification” or “modification”, — though it is really one of
review   —   a   party   cannot   be   permitted   to   circumvent   or
bypass   the   circulation   procedure   and   indirectly   obtain   a
hearing   in   the   open   court.   What   cannot   be   done   directly
cannot   be   permitted   to   be   done   indirectly.   (See   in   this
connection   a   detailed   order   of   the   then   Registrar   of   this
Court   in   Sone   Lal   v.   State   of   U.P.   [(1982)   2   SCC   398]
deprecating a similar practice.)
18 .   We, therefore, agree with the learned Solicitor General
that   the   Court   should   not   permit   hearing   of   such   an
application   for   “clarification”,   “modification”   or   “recall”   if
the   application   is   in   substance   one   for   review.   In   that
event, the Court could either reject the application straight
away   with   or   without   costs   or   permit   withdrawal   with
leave   to   file   a   review   application   to   be   listed   initially   in
chambers.”
              xxx           xxx           xxx           xxx 
12.   The   hallmark   of   a   judicial   pronouncement   is   its
stability and finality. Judicial verdicts are not like sand
14

dunes   which   are   subject   to   the   vagaries   of   wind   and
weather 2
.   A   disturbing   trend   has   emerged   in   this   court
of   repeated   applications,   styled   as   Miscellaneous
Applications, being filed after a final judgment has been
pronounced.   Such   a   practice   has   no   legal   foundation
and must be firmly discouraged. It reduces litigation to a
gambit.   Miscellaneous   Applications   are   becoming   a
preferred   course   to   those   with   resources   to   pursue
strategies to avoid compliance with judicial decisions. A
judicial pronouncement cannot be subject to modification
once   the   judgment   has   been   pronounced,   by   filing   a
miscellaneous   application.   Filing   of   a   miscellaneous
application   seeking   modification/clarification   of   a
judgment is not envisaged in law. Further, it is a settled
legal   principle   that   one   cannot   do   indirectly   what   one
cannot   do   directly   [“Quando   aliquid   prohibetur   ex
directo, prohibetur et per obliquum”].
12. As   per   the   said   legal   position,   it   is   clear   that   the   power   of
this   Court   under   the   said   Rule   is   limited   and   can   only   be
exercised sparingly with due caution while confining itself within
the   parameters  as  described  only  to   correct  clerical/arithmetical
mistakes or otherwise to rectify the accidental slip or omission.
2  Meghmala Vs. G Narasimha Reddy, (2010) 8 SCC 383
15

13. On   perusal   of   the   order   dated   09.09.2022,   it   is   apparent
that the application filed by the intervenor seeking intervention in
the Transfer Petition was dismissed in absence of any grounds in
the   application   to   show   that   intervenor   had   any   direct   or
substantial nexus in the matter or that he was adversely affected
by   any   question   of   law.   Accordingly,   it   was   observed   that   the
intervenor   does   not   have   any   locus   to   intervene.   Further,   this
Court   was   of   the   view   that   the   cases   which   were   referred   to   in
clause   (i)   to   (xvi)   in   paragraph   1   of   the   said   order   and   were
pending   since   more   than   20   years   with   no   substantial   progress
made   in   trial   proceedings,   and   that   allegations   made   in   all   the
cases   were   similar   and   most   of   the   witnesses   were   from
Maharashtra.   Hence,   to   avoid   any   prejudice   in   other   pending
trials and with an intent to consolidate all those cases, directions
as referred above in paragraph 13 were issued to Principal Judge,
Bombay   City   Civil   &   Sessions   Court   to   conclude   the   trial   in
transferred cases within the time frame from the date of transfer. 
14. During   the   course   of   hearing,   Mr.   Tushar   Mehta,   learned
senior   counsel   has   narrowed   his   arguments   with   particular
reference to paragraph 13(e) of the order dated 09.09.2022, inter­
16

alia, contending that in view of the said direction, de­novo trial in
the matters in which final hearing is concluded from the stage of
framing of charge is not proper. He further urged that, in R.C.C.
No.   147/2002   pending   before   155­II,   Additional   Chief   Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, arguments have been duly heard
and the trial is on the verge of conclusion and only the judgment
is left to be pronounced, therefore, to such extent, clarification of
the order dated 09.09.2022 may be directed. On the other hand,
supplementing   the   argument   of   State   of   Maharashtra,   Shri
Mahesh   Jethmalani   persuaded   us   to   recall   the   order,   however,
Shri   Vikas   Singh   contested   the   said   arguments   on   the   anvil   of
Order   XII   Rule   3   of   Supreme   Court   Rules   and   submitted   that
such recall is not permissible under the said provision. 
15. After   hearing   learned   counsels   for   the   parties,   in   our   view
the recall of the entire order as prayed for on the instance of the
intervenor   is   not   justified,   in   particular   looking   at   the   detailed
discussion   made   in   order   dated   09.09.2022.   Simultaneously,   it
cannot be ignored that State of Maharashtra has filed application
asking   modification   of   the   order.   Therefore,   in   view   of   the
aforesaid, we refrain ourselves to recall the order on insistence of
17

the  intervenor  and deem  it appropriate to consider  the prayer  of
the State of Maharashtra taking note of the submissions made in
this respect.
16. Now,   so   far   as   contention   of   Mr.   Tushar   Mehta,   learned
senior   counsel   is   concerned,   it   is   seen   from   paragraph   13(e)   of
order dated 09.09.2022, a direction was issued to the effect that
on   assignment   of   the   transferred   cases,   the   transferee   Court(s)
shall   frame   the   charges   within   two   months   and   thereafter
conclude   the   trial   not   later  than   two   years.  Considering   the   fact
that in R.C.C. No. 147/2002, arguments were finally  heard, and
hearing   was   concluded,   therefore,   clause   (e)   of   paragraph   13   of
order   dated   09.09.2022   prima­facie   may   cause   pre­judice   to
complainant   if   the   trial   is   restarted   from   the   stage   of   framing   of
charges.   In   our   view,   it   appears   to   be   a   mistake   in   the   order  by
accidental slip or omission. Although, in the order of the Transfer
Petition,   some   observations   with   respect   to   hearing   in   the   said
trial   is   there,   but   it   is   due   to   omission   and   re­opening   of   the
entire   case   R.C.C.   No.   147/2002   would   not   be   in   fair
administration   of   justice.   We   find   force   in   the   argument   of   Mr.
Tushar   Mehta,   learned   senior   counsel   to   such   extent.   In   our
18

view,   due   to   omission,   the   said   fact   requires   clarification   and
rectification, which took place due to accidental slip in the order.
At   this   stage,   the   argument   advanced   by   Shri   Vikas   Singh   that
the Judge who heard the arguments in R.C.C. No. 147/2002, has
already   been   transferred,  assumes  not   relevance  for   rectification
of mistake and to issue conclusive directions in the matter.
17. As   discussed   above,   the   trial   of   R.C.C.   No.   147/2002
pending   in   the   Court   of   155­II,   Additional   Chief   Judicial
Magistrate,   First   Class,   Nagpur   was   at   the   stage   of   final
argument.   The   Presiding   Officer   who   heard   the   arguments   has
already   been   transferred   prior   to   pronouncing   the   judgment   in
pursuance   of   order   of   this   Court.   Therefore,   now   on   joining   of
new incumbent, the final arguments in the said trial ought to be
heard   by   the   new   presiding   officer   to   pronounce   the   judgment.
Therefore,   on   modification   of   order   of   transfer   dated   09.09.2022
of said R.C.C. No. 147/2002 to such extent and giving liberty to
the   new   incumbent   Presiding   Officer   in   the   aforesaid   Court   at
Nagpur   to   decide   the   case   from   the   stage   of   final   hearing   itself,
the same would not cause any prejudice to the stakeholders and
it shall meet the ends of justice. 
19

18. Further,   so   far   as   Review   Petition   preferred   by
Respondent/Accused   Nos.   20,   23,   25,   26,   30,   31,   32   and   34
bearing   Diary   No.   36121/2022   and   titled   as   ‘Ghanshyam
Lahaunji Mudgal and others Vs. Ketan Kantilal Seth and others’
is   concerned,   essentially   the   grounds   on   which   the   prayer   has
been   made   therein   by   these   accused   persons   is   more   or   less
similar   to   the   submissions   made   by   them   in   reply   filed   by  them
in support of the I.A. filed by State of Maharashtra. In a nutshell,
the aforesaid accused persons in support of State of Maharashtra
have submitted that all of them are senior citizens aged between
65   to   85   years   and   they   are   inter­alia   suffering   from   various
ailments   including   high   blood   pressure,   sugar,   heart   issues   etc.
Further,   they   have   submitted   that   vide   order   dated   09.09.2022,
the   cases   pending   against   them   in   Amravati   [as   mentioned   in
para   1(xiv)]   have   also   been   transferred   to   the   Court   of   Principal
Judge,   Bombay   City   Civil   and   Sessions   Court,   Fort,   Mumbai   –
400032, and in view of such transfer, they may suffer irreparable
hardships   since   they   are   not   in   a   stable   physical   condition   to
travel from Amravati to Mumbai which is approximately 600 kms
far and takes 10 hours one way to cover the distance. It has been
further   stated   that   all   the   aforesaid   accused   persons   have
20

delicate   health   conditions   and   therefore   prayed   that   their   cases
may   also   be   stayed   from   transfer   and   be   continued   before   the
transferor Court at Amravati itself. 
19. We   have   duly   considered   the   submissions   made   by   the
aforesaid respondents/accused persons and having perused their
medical   records,   we   find   reasonable   force   in   the   contentions   as
raised   above.   Having   said   so,   we   are   of   the   considered   opinion
that 
in   view   of   this   peculiar   circumstances   of   the   instant   case,   it
would be in the interest of justice and all stakeholders to modify
the   order   dated   09.09.2022   to   such   extent   as   prayed   herein
above   and   transfer   of   the   cases   from   Amravati   concerning   the
aforesaid accused persons be refrained from being transferred to
the transferee Court. In view of the foregoing discussion, we deem
it   appropriate   to   grant   the   relief   as   prayed   by   the
respondent/accused   nos.   20,   23,   25,   26,   30,   31,   32   and   34.
Further,   in   view   of   the   relief   as   granted   and   in   order   to
circumvent   the   multiplicity   of   proceedings,   we   deem   it   fit   to
21

observe   that   the   aforesaid   review   petition   be   now   treated   as
infructuous and disposed­off in terms of above observation.
20. In addition, some clarification to the directions contained in
13(e)   which   relates   to   processing   the   trial   on   transfer   is   also
required   to   be   issued.   Thereby,   the   cases   received   to   the
transferee   Court,   shall   be   proceeded   without   any   ambiguity   and
the trials of  those cases may be concluded within time frame. 
21. In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   these   applications   be
treated   as   disposed­off   modifying   the   order   dated   09.09.2022   to
the extent indicated herein below –  
I. The   order   dated   09.09.2022   passed   in   Transfer   Petition
(Criminal)   Nos.   333­348/2021   is   hereby   modified   and
maintained subject to –
I­A.   Criminal   proceedings   relating   to
Respondent/Accused   Nos.   20,   23,   25,   26,   30,   31,
32   and   34   pending   before   transferor   Court   at
Amravati, if already transferred to transferee Court,
shall   be   returned   to   the   transferor   Court   and
22

continue   at   the   transferor   Court   from   the   stage   as
received;   
I­B.   The   review   petition   filed   by
Respondent/Accused   Nos.   20,   23,   25,   26,   30,   31,
32 and 34 bearing Diary No. 36121/2022 and titled
as   ‘Ghanshyam   Lahaunji   Mudgal   and   others   Vs.
Ketan   Kantilal   Seth   and   others’   is   dismissed   as
infructuous   in   view   of   observations   made   in
paragraph 19 herein.
II. The   transfer   of   R.C.C.   No.   147/2002   by   order   dated
09.09.2022   passed   in   Transfer   Petition   (Criminal)   Nos.
333­348/2021 is restrained to the transferor  Court with a
clarification   that   the   trial   shall   proceed   from   the   stage   of
final   arguments   by   the   Presiding   Officer   uninfluenced   by
the directions in para 13(e) of order dated 09.09.2022.
III. Directions   issued   in   para   13(e)   in   order   dated   09.09.2022
be now read as under – 
“On   receiving   the   cases   as   mentioned   in   para
13(a), the transferee Court shall proceed in those
cases from the stage of the case in which it had
23

received   from   the   transferor   Court(s).   The   cases
in   which   charges   have   not   been   framed,   it   shall
be framed  within two  months  and  the trial shall
start   immediately.   In   cases   in   which   charges
have   already   been   framed   and   evidence   has
been   started   after   submitting   the   trial   program,
those cases shall proceed from that stage of trial.
Meaning   thereby,   de­novo   trial   in   such   cases
from   stage   of   framing   of   charge   is   not   required.
The   transferee   Court(s)   shall   conclude   all   the
trials   as   expeditiously   as   possible   within   a
period of two years.” 
IV. Lastly,   we   make   it   clear   that   this   Court   vide   order   dated
09.09.2022 never intended or meant to set­aside the order
dated   24.06.2021   passed   by   Bombay   High   Court.   It   is
clarified   that   the   concerned   trial   Court   at   Nagpur   shall
make all the endeavor to comply with the timeline as given
by   Bombay  High Court  and decide the  case  in accordance
with law. 
24

………………………..J.
                                             (SURYA KANT)
…………….…………J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 4, 2023.
25