Satyendra Nath Shukla v. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Home, U.P., Lucknow & Another, 2026

The applicant (complainant) challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, transferring a criminal trial from one Additional Sessions Judge to another.

Initially, the trial was conducted before Shri Abhinay Kumar Mishra, Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (ATS), Lucknow.

During his tenure, the court recorded the statements of the first nine prosecution witnesses, including all material witnesses of fact.

Subsequently, Shri Abhinay Kumar Mishra was transferred to another court within the same Sessions Division.

His successor assumed charge of the original court and recorded the testimony of the tenth prosecution witness.

Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application under Section 408 CrPC before the Sessions Judge seeking transfer of the trial to the court now presided over by Shri Abhinay Kumar Mishra.

The application was based on the ground that the Judge who had recorded the evidence of most witnesses was better placed to appreciate their testimony, thereby promoting judicial continuity, fairness, and judicial economy.

The Sessions Judge allowed the transfer application.

Aggrieved by this order, the complainant approached the Allahabad High Court by filing a transfer application under Section 407 CrPC.

The applicant argued that Section 326 CrPC permits a successor Judge to continue a part-heard trial and does not require the case to follow the Judge who had recorded earlier evidence.

Reliance was placed on the decisions in Ranbir Yadav v. State of Bihar, Bhaskar alias Prabhaskar v. State, and Anil Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P.

The High Court considered whether such a challenge was maintainable under Section 407 CrPC.

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the transfer application.

The Court held that the proviso to Section 407(2) CrPC permits an application before the High Court only where a transfer application filed before the Sessions Judge has been rejected.

It clarified that where the Sessions Judge allows a transfer application under Section 408 CrPC, the aggrieved person cannot challenge the order by filing another transfer application under Section 407 CrPC.

The Court held that such an order can only be challenged by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.

Although the applicant had invoked Section 407 instead of Section 482, the Court declined to dismiss the petition on this technical ground since both parties had argued the matter on merits.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the Court examined the legality of the transfer order.

The Court observed that both courts involved possessed competent jurisdiction to try the case, leaving the Sessions Judge with the discretion to assign the matter to either court.

The Court found that the Sessions Judge had exercised his discretion judiciously after hearing all parties.

It held that transferring the matter to the Judge who had recorded the testimony of nine prosecution witnesses promoted fair adjudication because that Judge had the benefit of observing the demeanour of almost all material witnesses.

The Court further held that the authorities relied upon by the applicant concerning Section 326 CrPC were inapplicable, as the present transfer was not based upon lack of jurisdiction.

The Court reaffirmed that the proviso to Section 407(2) expressly limits recourse to the High Court where the Sessions Judge has rejected a transfer request, thereby excluding challenges against orders allowing transfer.

By directing aggrieved parties to invoke Section 482 CrPC, the Court clarified the appropriate procedural remedy while preserving the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction.

The decision recognizes that judicial continuity and the ability of the trial Judge to observe witness demeanour are legitimate considerations while deciding transfer applications.

The Court appropriately balanced procedural technicalities with substantive justice by treating the petition as one under Section 482 after hearing arguments on merits.

The ruling reinforces the discretionary authority of Sessions Judges to allocate cases among competent courts within their jurisdiction, provided the discretion is exercised fairly and judicially.

The judgment also clarifies that Section 326 CrPC merely enables a successor Judge to continue a trial and does not create an absolute rule preventing transfer to another competent court.

The decision provides important procedural guidance for criminal practitioners regarding the correct remedy against transfer orders passed by Sessions Judges.