Court rules that transfer of cases among Sessions Courts, even after trial commencement, does not violate accused's right to fair trial when statutory exceptions are respected
In a significant judgment delivered on September 2, 2026, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition challenging the administrative transfer of a criminal trial from one Sessions Court to another in Bengaluru City. The petitioner, Krishna Murthy @ Murthy, was facing trial for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which had commenced before the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge. After the prosecution had examined 20 witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, a notification was issued reallocating the trial to the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge pursuant to an administrative reallocation of police stations and judicial workload.
The petitioner contended that the transfer was illegal, prejudicial, and violated the principle that the Judge who hears the evidence must also dispose of the case, invoking Sections 326, 408, and 409 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). He argued that because the trial was at an advanced stage, with evidence nearly complete and the case ready for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the same Judge should conclude the trial to ensure fairness, especially due to the Judge's opportunity to observe witness demeanour.
The State and respondents defended the administrative notification, emphasizing that such transfers are routine and lawful exercises of judicial administration powers. They argued that the trial had not reached the stage warranting exception to the transfer and that the subsequent Court could proceed with the case without prejudice. The notification itself carved out specific exceptions for cases already at critical stages such as examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., final arguments, or reserved judgment, to remain with the original Court.
The Court meticulously analyzed the statutory framework under the recently enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), particularly Sections 365, 448, and 449, which correspond to Sections 326, 408, and 409 of the Cr.P.C., respectively. Section 365 BNSS explicitly contemplates succession of Judges during trial and validates continuity of proceedings despite change in presiding Judge. Section 448 BNSS empowers the Sessions Judge to transfer cases within the Sessions division for the ends of justice, and Section 449 BNSS allows withdrawal or recall of cases made over to subordinate Courts, including after trial commencement but before the accused's examination.
The Court held that the general administrative power to reallocate police stations and transfer cases is not barred merely because a trial has commenced, so long as exceptions carved out in the notification are followed. The principle "he who hears must decide," rooted in administrative law, cannot override express statutory provisions allowing judicial succession and transfer. The Karnataka High Court found that the petitioner's case was transferred before reaching the protective exceptions-no statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been recorded, final arguments had not started, and judgment was not reserved.
Reiterating the legal position from precedents including the Supreme Court's ruling in Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal and the Allahabad High Court's judgments, the Court emphasized that transfer of part-heard cases is permissible and does not result in miscarriage of justice. The accused's right to a fair trial before a competent and impartial Court is recognized, but there is no vested right to insist on trial before a particular Judge.
The administrative notification was found to be a rational exercise aimed at efficient judicial administration and equitable distribution of cases. There was no evidence of arbitrariness, mala fides, or targeted prejudice against the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the transfer and affirming that such administrative decisions fall within the domain of the Sessions Judge and the judiciary's institutional management.
This judgment clarifies the scope and limits of judicial transfers in criminal trials, balancing the accused's right to a fair trial with the necessity of flexible judicial administration to ensure timely and orderly dispensation of justice.
Bottom Line:
Administrative decision regarding reallocation of police stations and transfer of cases among Sessions Courts does not violate an accused's right to a fair trial, provided statutory exceptions are adhered to.
Statutory provision(s): Section 326, Section 408, Section 409 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Sections 365, 448, 449 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Krishna Murthy @ Murthy v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972488
