Transfer of Criminal Case Denied: Supreme Court Upholds Trial at Salem Court

The present case revolves around a dispute regarding the use of the trademark ‘SACHAMOTI’ for sago or sabudana, leading to a criminal complaint by M/S Sabu Trade Private Limited against Rajkumar Sabu. The respondent alleged unauthorized and illegal use of the trademark, invoking Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, at the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Salem.

The petitioner, Rajkumar Sabu, filed a transfer petition under Section 406 of CrPC, seeking to move the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. He contended that the case was intertwined with ongoing civil litigations in the Delhi High Court regarding ownership of the ‘SACHAMOTI’ trademark. Furthermore, he cited language barriers, inconvenience due to travel from Indore to Salem, and an alleged lack of impartiality at Salem as primary reasons for transfer.

Arguments by the Petitioner

Rajkumar Sabu, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. S. Guru Krishnakumar, raised the following points:

The criminal proceedings at Salem overlapped with civil suits in the Delhi High Court, making it logical to transfer the case to Delhi for consistency.
The case proceedings at Salem were in Tamil, a language he did not understand, making it difficult for him to effectively participate in the trial.
He lived in Indore, over 2000 kilometers away from Salem, with no direct connectivity, making travel for hearings cumbersome.
He alleged that the respondents had influence in Salem, raising apprehensions about a fair trial.

Arguments by the Respondent

M/S Sabu Trade Private Limited, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayan, countered these arguments, stating:

The transfer petition was filed in January 2021, nearly three years after the criminal complaint was registered on April 5, 2018, indicating undue delay.
The case had reached the cross-examination stage, and transferring it would disrupt proceedings.
The Madras High Court had already dispensed with the petitioner’s personal appearance at trial, reducing the inconvenience argument.
There was no substantial evidence suggesting that Salem’s judicial environment would compromise the fairness of the trial.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, presided by Justice Aniruddha Bose, examined the plea and determined that the petition lacked merit. The key findings were:

1. Overlapping Civil and Criminal Cases

The Court acknowledged that the subject matter of the criminal case overlapped with the civil cases at the Delhi High Court but held that this was insufficient to justify a transfer. Civil and criminal proceedings, even if arising from the same issue, are distinct in nature and can proceed separately in different forums.

2. Progress of the Trial

The Court noted that the case at Salem had already made significant progress, with witness examinations largely completed. Transferring the case at this stage would cause unnecessary delays.

3. Language Barrier

Regarding the petitioner’s difficulty with Tamil, the Court held that translators were available to aid him. It reiterated that lack of language proficiency alone is not a sufficient ground for transfer.

4. Distance and Convenience

The Court cited prior rulings, emphasizing that mere inconvenience or travel difficulties do not justify transferring a case. It stated, “Convenience or inconvenience are inconsequential so far as the mandate of law is concerned.”

5. Allegations of Bias

The petitioner’s claim of potential bias in Salem was not backed by substantial evidence. The Court referenced past rulings, asserting that transfer petitions based on apprehensions without credible material cannot be entertained.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition, stating:

“Jurisdiction under Section 406 CrPC ought to be sparingly used. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any substantial reason warranting transfer.”

It reaffirmed that the trial at Salem Court must continue and denied any cost imposition on the petitioner.

Petitioner Name: Rajkumar Sabu.
Respondent Name: M/S Sabu Trade Private Limited.
Judgment By: Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: Salem.
Judgment Date: 07-05-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: rajkumar-sabu-vs-ms-sabu-trade-priva-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-07-05-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category