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

Judicial Officer Abhinay Kumar Mishra was initially presiding over the trial and recorded the evidence of nine prosecution witnesses, including all material witnesses of fact.

Mishra was subsequently transferred to another court within the same Lucknow Sessions Division.

A new judicial officer, Shashwat Pandey, took charge of the original ATS Court and recorded the testimony of PW-10.

The complainant thereafter approached the Sessions Judge under Section 408 CrPC, seeking transfer of the part-heard trial to the court where the earlier presiding officer had been transferred.

The Sessions Judge allowed the transfer, considering that the earlier judge had already observed the demeanour of nine prosecution witnesses.

The accused challenged the transfer before the High Court, contending that Section 326 CrPC permitted the successor judge to continue the trial and that there was no allegation of bias against the new judge.

The High Court dismissed the transfer application and upheld the Sessions Judge's order transferring the part-heard trial.

The Court clarified that both the original ATS Court and the court to which the earlier judicial officer was transferred possessed jurisdiction to try the case.

Therefore, the fact that a new judge had already commenced recording evidence did not take away the Sessions Judge's discretion under Section 408 CrPC.

The Court explained that Section 326 CrPC vests jurisdiction in the Court, rather than personally in a particular Presiding Officer.

The High Court further clarified that where a transfer application under Section 408 is allowed by the Sessions Judge, an aggrieved person cannot challenge that order by filing another transfer application under Section 407 CrPC.

Such a challenge can be examined through the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

On merits, the Court found no illegality because the earlier judge had already recorded the testimony of nine prosecution witnesses, including all witnesses of fact.

The petition was therefore found to be without merit and dismissed.

The judgment draws an important distinction between jurisdiction of a court and the identity of its Presiding Officer. The transfer of a judge does not mean that jurisdiction personally travels with that judge; jurisdiction remains vested in the court.

Section 408 gives the Sessions Judge an important administrative-judicial discretion to transfer cases where doing so is considered expedient for the ends of justice.

The Court gave particular importance to continuity in appreciation of evidence. A judge who has personally observed the demeanour of material witnesses may have an evidentiary advantage when assessing their credibility.

The ruling does not mean that every part-heard trial must follow a transferred judge. Rather, it recognises that such continuity can be a legitimate factor in the Sessions Judge's discretionary decision.

The Court also clarified the procedural route for challenging transfer orders. Section 407 applies where the High Court itself exercises transfer jurisdiction, while an order already made by the Sessions Judge under Section 408, when challenged by an aggrieved party, is tested through the High Court's inherent powers.

The decision therefore balances judicial continuity, efficient trial management and fair appreciation of evidence against the accused's objection to transfer.

Most importantly, the Court found no demonstrated prejudice, bias or denial of a fair trial merely because the case was transferred to the earlier judge's new court.