{"id":268692,"date":"1965-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965"},"modified":"2019-02-06T09:33:50","modified_gmt":"2019-02-06T04:03:50","slug":"gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965","title":{"rendered":"Gurucharan Das Chadha vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 November, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gurucharan Das Chadha vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 November, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1418, 1966 SCR (2) 678<\/div>\n
Author: Hidayatullah<\/div>\n
Bench: Hidayatullah, M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGURUCHARAN DAS CHADHA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n24\/11\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1418\t\t  1966 SCR  (2) 678\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1987 SC1140\t (3)\n R\t    1988 SC1531\t (152)\n\n\nACT:\n    Code  of  Criminal Procedure,  s.  527--Supreme  Court's\npower  to  transfer cases from one State  to  another--Power\nwhether\t inconsistent  with  s. 7(2)<\/a> of\t the  Prevention  of\nCorruption Act, (Act 2 of 1947)--Case triable before special\njudge of area within which offence committed, whether can be\ntransferred outside such area.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  petitioner  was a member of an All  India  Service\nserving\t in  the State of Rajasthan.  The  State  Government\nordered\t his  trail before the Special\tJudge  of  Bharatpur\nunder  s. 120B<\/a>\/161<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5(1)<\/a>\t (a)\n(d)  and  s. 5(2)<\/a> of the Prevention of\tCorruption  Act.  He\nmoved the Supreme Court under s. 527<\/a> of the Code of Criminal\nProcedure  praying for the transfer of his case\t to  another\nState,\ton various grounds.  On behalf of the State  it\t was\ncontended  that\t the Supreme Court could  not  exercise\t its\npowers under s. 527<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the\nmatter\tbecause s. 7(1)<\/a> of the Prevention of Corruption\t Act\nrequired  the offences in question to be tried by a  special\njudge  only, and s. 7(2)<\/a> of the Act required the offence  to\nbe  tried by a Special Judge for the area within which\tthey\nwere  committed which condition could never be satisfied  if\nthere was a transfer.\n     HELD : (i) The condition in sub-section (1) of s. 7<\/a>  of\nthe Prevention of Corruption Act that the case must be tried\nby special judge is a sine qua non for the trial of offences\nin   Section   6<\/a>.  This\t condition  can\t be   satisfied\t  by\ntransferring  the  case from one special  judge\t to  another\nspecial Judge. [684 B]\n     Sub-section (2) of s. 7<\/a> merely distributes work between\nspecial\t judges\t appointed  in a  State\t with  reference  to\nterritory.   This Provision is on a par with the section  of\nthe  Code<\/a>  of Criminal Procedure  which\t confer\t territorial\njurisdiction  on Sessions Judges and Magistrates.  An  order\nof  transfer  by the very nature of  things  must  sometimes\nresult in taking the case out of the territory. [685 D]\n     (ii) The third sub-section of s. 8<\/a> of the Act preserves\nthe  application ,of any provision of the Code<\/a>, of  Criminal\nProcedure  if  it is not inconsistent with the Act  save  as\nprovided  in  the first two sub-sections  of  that  section.\nSection 527<\/a> of the Code therefore remains applicable; if  it\nis  not inconsistent with s. 7(2)<\/a> of the Act.  There  is  no\ninconsistency between s. 527<\/a> of the Code and s. 7(2)<\/a> of\t the\nAct  because  the territorial jurisdiction  created  by\t the\nlatter\toperates in a different Sphere and  under  different\ncircumstances.\tInconsistency can only be found if two\tpro-\nvisions of law apply in identical circumstances, and  create\ncontradictions.\t Such a situation does not arise when either\nthis  Court  or\t the  High  Court  exercises  the  power  of\ntransfer.    Therefore\tthis  Court  in\t exercise   of\t its\njurisdiction and power under s. 527<\/a> of the Code can transfer\na  case from a special judge subordinate to one High  Court\nto  another special judge subordinate to another High  Court\n[685 E]\n     Ramchandra\t Prasad v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1961\tS.C.\n129, referred to,\n679\n    (iii) On merits however the petition in the present case\ncould not succeed.  There was nothing in it which would show\nthat there was any interference direct or indirect with\t the\ninvestigation of the offences alleged against the petitioner\nor  the\t trial of the case by the special judge.  A  general\nfeeling\t that some persons are hostile to the petitioner  is\nnot  sufficient.  The Court has further to see\twhether\t the\napprehension is reasonable. [686 H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      ORIGINAL\tJURISDICTION:  Transfer Petition  No.  7  of
\n1965.(Under Section 527<\/a> of Criminal Procedure Code).\n<\/p>\n
       T. R. Bhasin, for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
       G. C.  Kasliwal,\t Advocate-General for the  State  of
\nRajasthan,
\n       K. K. Jain and R. N. Sachthey for the Respondent.
\n       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n       Hidayatullah,  J. This is a petition under S. 527<\/a>  of
\nthe  Code  of  Criminal\t Procedure for\tthe  transfer  of  a
\ncriminal case (No. 2 of 1964-state v. Gurcharan Dass  Chadha
\nI.P.S.) which is pending in the Court of the Special  Judge,
\nBharatpur,  Rajasthan to another criminal court of equal  or
\nsuperior jurisdiction subordinate to a High Court other than
\nthe High Court of Rajasthan.  The petitioner is the  accused
\nin  that  case\tand he is being tried  under  ss.  120B<\/a>\/161<\/a>,
\nIndian\tPenal  Code<\/a>  and  S.  5(1)(a)(d)<\/a>  and  5<\/a>`2)  of\t the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
     prosecution  has been sanctioned by the  Government  of
\nIndia.\tIn December, 1962, he was serving as  Superintendent
\nof Police and was selected to be Commandant of 8th Batallion
\nof Rajasthan Armed Constabulary.  He avers that he took over
\nas  Commandant\ton  January 7, 1963  but  was  placed  under
\nsuspension the same day and a case was registered on January
\n12,  1963  which  has resulted in  the\tpresent\t prosecution
\nagainst\t him.  The petitioner apprehends for reasons  to  be
\nstated\tpresently that he is not likely to get a fair,\tjust
\nand  impartial trial in the State of Rajasthan owing to\t the
\nhostility  and\tinfluence of the then Law Minister  who\t was
\nalso Minister incharge of Home Department of the State,\t the
\nAdditional Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corruption, and
\nthe Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, Jaipur.
\nIn support of his petition he has referred to many incidents
\nand filed many documents.  He has sworn an affidavit that he
\nentertains   an\t apprehension  that  these   persons   would
\ninterfere  with\t the  trial  of the case  in  the  State  of
\nRajasthan and that a transfer of the case outside the  State
\nis in the interest of justice.\n<\/p>\n
680<\/span><\/p>\n
    The State Government has opposed the application strenu.
\nously  and has questioned the jurisdiction of this Court  to
\ntransfer under the powers conferred on it by s.. 527 Code of
\nCriminal Procedure a case made over by the Government of the
\nState  of Rajasthan for trial to a Special Judge  under\t the
\nCriminal  Law  Amendment  Act<\/a>, 1952 (Act 46  of\t 1962).\t  In
\naddition,  the\tState Government joins issue  on  the  facts
\nalleged and the merits of the claim for the transfer of\t the
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
     While  this petition was pending the  State  Government
\nserved\tthe petitioner with a notice and a  charge-sheet  to
\nshow cause why he should not be proceeded against for breach
\nof  Rule  No. 8 of the All India Services  (Conduct)  Rules,
\n1954,  because\the  had\t communicated\t“directly\/indirectly
\nofficial    documents\tand   information   to\t  Government
\nservants\/other\tpersons\t to whom he was\t not  authorised  to
\ncommunicate  such  documents\/information” as  indicated\t and
\ndetailed  in  a statement of  allegations  accompanying\t the
\nnotice and the charge.\tThe State Government has appended to
\nthis charge two appendices giving details of 31 and 16 docu-
\nments  respectively,  which  were  said\t to  have  been\t  so
\ncommunicated by the petitioner to his counsel Messrs.  R. K.
\nRastogi\t and  D. P. Gupta, Advocates of Jodhpur\t and  others
\nnamed  as “non-petitioners” in a writ petition which he\t had
\nfiled  in the High Court of Rajasthan (No. 794 of 1964)\t and
\nwhich  he subsequently withdrew on December 23, 1964  before
\ntaking action to file the present petition.  The notice, the
\ncharge\tand the statement of allegations  accompanying\tthem
\nwere signed by Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Special Secretary  to
\nGovernment.  On receiving this charge, the petitioner  moved
\nanother petition in this Court for taking action against Mr.
\nShrama and the Government of Rajasthan for contempt of\tthis
\nCourt.\tAt an earlier hearing, where we were considering the
\npetition for transfer, the other petition was brought to our
\nnotice and we were about to order issuance of notices to the
\ncontemners  but\t the Advocate General of the  Government  of
\nRajasthan  took notice of the petition and offered  to\ttake
\naction\tin  respect  thereof.\tAs a  result  the  State  of
\nRajasthan through the Chief Secretary to the Government\t and
\nMr.  Sharma  separately filed their replies  to\t the  second
\npetition  and attempted justification.\tMr.  Sharma  abjured
\nknowledge  of the contents of the petition for transfer\t and
\ndenied any malice, ill-will or grudge, pleading good  faith.
\nThe matter would have received serious attention from us but
\nfor  the  fact\tthat  at  the  next  hearing  the  plea\t for
\njustification was abandoned and an unconditional apology was
\nentered\t on  behalf of the State Government as well  as\t Mr.
\nSharma.\t  The  latter  was present in  Court  and  expressed
\nregret for what had. happened.\n<\/p>\n
681<\/span><\/p>\n
We  accepted the appology and do not, therefore,feel  called
\nupon  to  consider the plea of justification which,  in\t any
\nevent, is not a plea heard in bar when contempt is clear and
\nmanifest.   There could be no question in the  present\tcase
\nthat  by  charging  the petitioner  with  proceedings  of  a
\ndifferent  kind there was, if not direct, at least  indirect
\npressure brought upon him in the prosecution of his petition
\nfor. transfer.\tOf this we would have taken serious note be-
\ncause  it  was\tlikely to have hampered\t the  petitioner  in
\nprosecuting his petition freely before this Court and  would
\nhave  resulted in obstruction of administration of  justice.
\nIf the petitioner was guilty of any lapse under the Services
\n(Conduct)  Rules or even guilty of an offence the action  to
\nwhich  he  would be otherwise subject could  wait  till\t the
\npresent\t proceedings had terminated and there was really  no
\nreason\tto hurry with a charge against the petitioner  which
\ncharge would have put him under duress of some kind.  Such a
\ncourse\tof  action ‘is to be deprecated and we are  glad  to
\nnote  that  the Government of Rajasthan\t and  the  Secretary
\nconcerned  have seen the matter in this light and have\tmade
\namends by proper contrition.  We do not feel called upon  to
\nsay more than this on the petition for contempt which  shall
\nbe filed.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t shall\tnow take up the objection  that\t this  Court
\nlacks  jurisdiction to transfer the case pending before\t the
\nspecial\t Judge, Bharatpur.  This objection goes to the\troot
\nof  the\t matter.  Questions of\tinherent  jurisdiction\tmust
\nalways\tbe decided before the merits are considered  because
\nto dismiss the petition after consideration of merits itself
\ninvolves an assumption of jurisdiction.\t We must accordingly
\nconsider the objection even though we are satisfied that-the
\npetition must fail on merits.\n<\/p>\n
     The  power which the petitioner is invoking flows\tfrom
\ns.  527\t of the Code<\/a> of Criminal Procedure.  The  first\t two
\nsub-sections  of  that section are material  here  and\tthey
\nread:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “527.\t Power of Supreme Court to  transfer
\n\t      cases and appeals.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   (1)\t Whenever  it is made to  appear  to
\n\t      the  Supreme’ Court that an order\t under\tthis
\n\t      section is expedient for the ends of  justice,
\n\t      it  may  direct that any\tparticular  case  or
\n\t      appeal  be transferred from one High Court  to
\n\t      another  High Court or from a  Criminal  Court
\n\t      subordinate  to  one  High  Court\t to  another
\n\t      Criminal\t Court\t of   equal   or    superior
\n\t      jurisdiction   subordinate  to  another\tHigh
\n\t      Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (2)\t The  Supreme  Court may  act  under
\n\t      this  section only on the application  of\t the
\n\t      Attorney-General of India
\n682<\/span>
\n\t      or  of  a\t party interested,  and\t every\tsuch
\n\t      application  shall  be made  by  motion  which
\n\t      shall,  except  when  the\t applicant  is\t the
\n\t      Attorney-General\tof  India or  the  Advocate-
\n\t      General,\t be   supported\t by   affidavit\t  or
\n\t      affirmation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    It is conceded by the Advocate General that the power to
\ntransfer  criminal  cases  as laid down in  the\t section  is
\nordinarily available but he contends that a case assigned by
\nthe  State Government under the Criminal Law Amendment\tAct<\/a>,
\n1952 to a special Judge cannot be transferred at all because
\nunder  the  terms  of that Act, which  is  a  self-contained
\nspecial law, such a case must be tried by the special  Judge
\ndesignate  only.   The argument is extremely  plausible\t but
\ndoes  not bear close scrutiny.\tTo understand  the  argument
\nand  how it is refuted certain provisions of the Act may  be
\nseen.  The first section of the Act gives the short title of
\nthe  Act.  Sections 2<\/a> and 3<\/a> of the Act introduce changes  in
\nthe Indian Penal Code<\/a> by increasing the punishment in s. 165<\/a>
\nand  by inserting S. 165A<\/a> which provides for punishment\t for
\nabetment of offences defined in ss. 161<\/a> and 165<\/a>.  Sections 4<\/a>
\nand  5<\/a>\tof  the Act make some amendments in s.\t164<\/a>  of\t the
\nIndian\tPenal  Code  and  s. 337<\/a> of  the  Code\tof  Criminal
\nProcedure.   These four sections have been repealed  by\t the
\nRepealing  and\tAmending Act<\/a>, 1957 as they  were  no  longer
\nnecessary.   The sections which we have to consider are\t ss.
\n6<\/a>, 7<\/a> and 8<\/a> of the Act.\tSection 6<\/a> confers power on the State
\nGovernment  to\tappoint\t special Judges\t for  the  trial  of
\ncertain offences.  The parts relevant to our purpose read
\n   “6. Power to appoint special judges.\n<\/p>\n
   (1)\t  The  State Government may, by notification in\t the
\nofficial  Gazette, appoint as many special Judges as may  be
\nnecessary for such area, or areas as may be specified in the
\nnotification to try the following offences, namely :-\n<\/p>\n
   (a)\t  an  offence punishable under section 161<\/a>,  section
\n162<\/a>, section 163<\/a>, section 164<\/a>, section 165<\/a>, or section 165-A<\/a>
\nof  the Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), or\t sub-section
\n(2)  of section 5<\/a> of the Prevention of Corruption Act,\t1947
\n(11 of 1947)\n<\/p>\n
   (b)\t  Any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to  commit
\nor  any abetment of any of the offences specified in  clause\n<\/p>\n
(a).\n<\/p>\n
683<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 7<\/a> next provides what cases shall be tried by special
\nJudges.The first two sub-sections read :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t “7.\t Cases triable by special Judges.
\n\t\t (1)\t Notwithstanding anything  contained
\n\t      in the Code<\/a> of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V
\n\t      of  1898)\t or in any other  law  the  offences
\n\t      specified\t in  sub-section (1)  of  section  6<\/a>
\n\t      shall be triable by special Judges only.
\n\t\t (2)\t Every\toffence\t specified  in\tsub-
\n\t      section (1) of section 6<\/a> shall be tried by the
\n\t      special Judge for the area within which it was
\n\t      committed,  or  where there are  more  special
\n\t      Judges than one for such area, by such one  of
\n\t      them as may be specified in this behalf by the
\n\t      State
\n\t      Government.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The procedure which the special Judge has to follow is\tlaid
\ndown in s. 8<\/a> (1) and by sub-section (2) of the same  section
\ncertain\t powers\t are confered on the  special  Judge.\tSub-
\nsection (3) then provides:\n<\/p>\n
“8. Procedure and Powers of Special Judges.
\n(1)………………………………
\n(2)………………………………
\n    (3)\t  Save as provided in sub-section (1) or sub-section
\n(2), the provisions of the Code<\/a> of Criminal Procedure, 1898,
\nshall  so  far as they are not inconsistent with  this\tAct,
\napply to the proceedings before a special Judge; and for the
\npurposes  of the said provisions, the Court of\tthe  Special
\nJudge shall be deemed to be a Court of Session trying  cases
\nwithout\t a  jury  or without the aid of\t assessors  and\t the
\nperson conducting a prosecution before a special Judge shall
\nbe deemed to be a public prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
\t   .\t .\t.     .\t    .\t  .\n\t   .\t .\t.     .\t    .\t   .\n<\/pre>\n
There  is  no need to refer to other provisions of  the\t Act
\nwhich do, not bear upon this matter.\n<\/p>\n
    The Advocate General, Rajasthan in opposing the petition
\nrelies, principally on the provisions of s. 7(1)<\/a> and (2) and
\ncontends  that the two sub-sections create two\trestrictions
\nwhich  must  be read together.\tThe first is  that  offences
\nspecified  in s. 6(1)<\/a> can be tried by special  Judges  only.
\nThe second is that every such offence shall be tried by\t the
\nspecial Judge for the area within which it is committed\t and
\nif there are more special Judges in that area, by the
\n684<\/span>
\nspecial\t Judge chosen by Government.  These two\t conditions,
\nbeing Statutory, it is submitted no order can be made  under
\nS.  527 be because on transfer, even if a special  Judge  is
\nentrusted with the case, the second condition is bound to be
\nbroken.\n<\/p>\n
     No\t doubt\tsub-section (1) of s. 7<\/a> lays down  that\t the
\ntrial  of  an offence specified in sub-section (1) of  s.  6<\/a>
\nmust  be by a special Judge only but that condition  can  be
\nfully met by transferring the case to another special Judge.
\nIndeed\tsection\t 527<\/a> itself contemplates that  the  transfer
\nshould\tbe to a court of equal or superior jurisdiction\t and
\nwe  presume that there are special Judges in every State  of
\nIndia.\t  The  selection  of  a\t special  Judge\t causes\t  no
\ndifficulty.   It  is the second condition  which  is  really
\npleaded in bar.\t The provision of sub-section (2) of s. 7<\/a> is
\nthat an offence shall be tried by the special Judge for\t the
\narea within which it is committed.\n<\/p>\n
     This  condition, if literaly understood would  lead  to
\nthe conclusion that a case once made over to a special Judge
\nin an area where there is no other special Judge, cannot  be
\ntransferred  at all.  This could hardly have been  intended.
\nIf  this, were so, the power to transfer a  case  intrastate
\nunder s. 526<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on a  parity
\nof  reasoning,\tmust  also be lacking.\tBut  this  Court  in
\nRamchandra  Prasad v. State of Bihar(1) upheld the  transfer
\nof a case by the High Court which took it to a special Judge
\nwho  had no jurisdiction in the area where the\toffence\t was
\ncommitted.   In\t holding that the transfer  was\t valid\tthis
\nCourt relied upon the third sub-section of s. 8<\/a> of the\tAct.
\nThat sub-section preserves the application of any  provision
\nof the Code<\/a> of Criminal Procedure if it is not\tinconsistent
\nwith the Act, save as provided in the first two sub-sections
\nof  that section.  The question, therefore, resolves  itself
\nto  this : is there an inconsistency between s. 527<\/a>  of\t the
\nCode and the second sub-section of s. 7<\/a> ? The answer is that
\nthere  is  none Apparently this Court in  the  earlier\tcase
\nfound no inconsistency and the reasons appear to be these  :
\nThe condition that an offence specified in s. 6(2)<\/a> shall  be
\ntried  by  a special Judge for the area within which  it  is
\ncommitted  merely specifies which of several special  Judges
\nappointed in the State by the State Government shall try it.
\nThe provision is analogous to others under which the  juris-
\ndiction of Magistrates and Sessions Judges is determined  on
\na  territorial\tbasis.\tEnactments in the Code<\/a>\tof  Criminal
\nProcedure  intended to confer territorial jurisdiction\tupon
\ncourts and Presiding Officers have never been held to  stand
\nin  the\t way of transfer of ,criminal  cases  outside  those
\nareas of territorial jurisdiction.  The
\n(1)  [1962] 2 S.C.R. 50.\n<\/p>\n
685<\/span><\/p>\n
order of transfer when it is made under the powers given  by
\nthe Code<\/a> invests another officer with jurisdiction  although
\nordinarily he would lack territorial jurisdiction to try the
\ncase.  The order of this Court, therefore, which transfer  a
\ncase from one special Judge subordinate to one High Court to
\nanother\t special  Judge subordinate to\tanother\t High  Court
\ncreates\t jurisdiction in the latter in much the same way  as
\nthe transfer by the High Court from one Sessions Judge in  a
\nSession\t Division  to  another\tSessions  Judge\t in  another
\nSession Division.\n<\/p>\n
    There is no comparison between the first sub-section and
\nthe second sub-section of s. 7<\/a>. The condition in the  second
\nsub-section  of\t S. 7<\/a> is not of the same  character  as\t the
\ncondition  in the first sub-section.  The first\t sub-section
\ncreates a condition which is a sine qua non for the trial of
\ncertain offences.  That condition is  that the trial must be
\nbefore\ta special Judge and laye emphasis on the  fact\tthat
\ntrial  must be before a special Judge appointed for is on  a
\npar  with  the distribution of\twork  territorially  between
\ndifferent  Sessions  Judges  and Magistrates.  An  order  of
\ntransfer,  by  the very nature of things must,\tsome  times,
\nresult\tin  taking  the case out of the\t territory  and\t the
\nprovisions of the Code<\/a> which are preserved by the third sub-
\nsection\t of S. 8<\/a> must supervene to enable this to E be\tdone
\nand  the  second sub-section of s, 7 must yield. We  do\t not
\nconsider  that\tthis creates any inconsistency\tbecause\t the
\nterritorial  jurisdiction created by the second\t sub-section
\nof  s. 7<\/a> operates in a different sphere and under  different
\ncircumstances.\tInconsistency  can  only  be  found  if\t two
\nprovisions  of\tlaw  apply in  identical  circumstances\t and
\ncreate\tcontradictions.\t Such a situation does not  arise  F
\nwhen  either  this  Court or the High  Court  exercises\t its
\npowers\tof transfer. We are accordingly of the opinion\tthat
\nthe Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction and  power
\nunder s. 527<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure can  transfer
\na case from a special Judge subordinate to one High Court to
\nanother special Judge subordinate to another High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     This  brings  us to the question of the merits  of\t the
\npetition.  The petitioner is being prosecuted  for  offences
\nunder s. 120B<\/a>\/161<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5(1)(a)(d)<\/a>
\nand   5(2)<\/a>  of\tthe  Prevention\t of  Corruption\t  Act.\t His
\napprehension is that the case against him is H\t  the result
\nof  the\t machination  of two Police  Officers  and  one\t Mr.
\nMathura\t Dass  Mathur who was the Home Minister\t in  1962.He
\nalso alleges hostility on the part of the State\t Government.
\nHe  has given instances which in his opinion prove that\t the
\nabove two
\n686<\/span>
\nofficers,  the\tHome Minister and the State  Government\t are
\nhostile to him.\t In relation to the State Government he\t has
\nalleged\t that  when he was appointed Commandant of  the\t 8th
\nBattallion   of\t Rajasthan  Armed  Constabulary\t the   State
\nGovernment  down-graded\t his post, otherwise he\t would\thave
\nreceived  a higher starting pay.  He also alleges  that\t his
\nsuspension and prosecution were made to coincide
\n    With  his assumption of new duties so that he might\t not
\nbe  able  to  join his new post. With  regard  to  the\tHome
\nMinister the petitioner has given five instances in which he
\napparently crossed the minister’s path and gave him room for
\nannoyance.   In\t regard to the two Police  Officers  he\t has
\naverred\t that the Deputy Inspector General of Police,  Ajmer
\nRange (Hanuman Prasad Sharma) and he had some differences on
\nthree  occasions.   He has also given similar  instances  of
\nhostility  towards him entertained by Sultan  Singh,  Deputy
\nInspector General of Police.  On the basis of these he\tsays
\nthat he entertains an apprehension that he will not  receive
\njustice in the State of Rajasthan.  The law with  regard  to
\ntransfer of cases is well-settled.  A case is transferred if
\nthere is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to
\na  case that justice will not be done.\tA petitioner is\t not
\nrequired  to demonstrate that justice will inevitably  fail.
\nHe is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances\tfrom
\nwhich it can be inferred that he entertains an\tapprehension
\nand that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged.\t  It
\nis  one of the principles of the administration\t of  justice
\nthat  justice should not only be done but it should be\tseen
\nto be done.  However, a mere allegation that there is appre-
\nhension\t that justice will not be done in a given case\tdoes
\nnot  office.   The  Court has further  to  see\twhether\t the
\napprehension  is  reasonable  or  not.\t To  judge  of\t the
\nreasonableness of the apprehension the State of the mind  of
\nthe  person  who  entertains the apprehension  is  no  doubt
\nrelevant  but  that is not all.\t The apprehension  must\t not
\nonly  be  entertained but must appear to the Court to  be  a
\nreasonable apprehension.\n<\/p>\n
    Applying these principles it may be said that there is a
\npossibility  that the petitioner entertains an\tapprehension
\nthat certain persons are hostile to him but his apprehension
\nthat  he will not receive justice in the State of  Rajasthan
\nis  not in our opinion reasonable.  All the facts  which  he
\nhas  narrated  bear upon past events in his  official  life.
\nNothing\t has been said which will show that there is in\t any
\nmanner\t an  interference  direct  or  indirect\t  with\t the
\ninvestigation  of  the offences alleged against him  or\t the
\ntrial  of the case before the special Judge,  Bharatpur.   A
\ngeneral\t feeling  that\tsome  persons  are  hostile  to\t the
\npetitioner is not sufficient.  There must be material
\n687<\/span>
\nfrom  which it can be inferred that the persons who  are  so
\nhostile\t are interfering or are likely to  interfere  either
\ndirectly or indirectly with the course of justice.  Of\tthis
\nthere is no trace either in his petition or in the arguments
\nwhich  were  advanced before us.  Nor  does  the  petitioner
\nallege anything against the special Judge who is trying\t the
\ncase.  In this view of the matter we decline to order trans-
\nfer  of\t the case from the special  Judge,  Bharatpur.\t The
\npetition accordingly fails and will be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t      Petition dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
688<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gurucharan Das Chadha vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 November, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1418, 1966 SCR (2) 678 Author: Hidayatullah Bench: Hidayatullah, M. PETITIONER: GURUCHARAN DAS CHADHA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/11\/1965 BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) RAMASWAMI, V. CITATION: 1966 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268692","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGurucharan Das Chadha vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gurucharan Das Chadha vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1965-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-06T04:03:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gurucharan Das Chadha vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 November, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-06T04:03:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965\"},\"wordCount\":3406,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965\",\"name\":\"Gurucharan Das Chadha vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-06T04:03:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gurucharan Das Chadha vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 November, 1965\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gurucharan Das Chadha vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gurucharan Das Chadha vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-06T04:03:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gurucharan Das Chadha vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 November, 1965","datePublished":"1965-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-06T04:03:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965"},"wordCount":3406,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965","name":"Gurucharan Das Chadha vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-06T04:03:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurucharan-das-chadha-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-november-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gurucharan Das Chadha vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 November, 1965"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268692","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=268692"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268692\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268692"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268692"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268692"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}