Trial Of Salman Khan's Deer Hunting Case Transferred To Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has allowed Salman Khan's transfer petition in the deer hunting case. The petitioner prayed for transfer of the criminal appeals and Arms Act appeal from the Sessions Court, primarily on the ground that they arose from the same judgment and set of facts and evidence, involving several common witnesses and overlapping allegations as in the Leave to appeal filed by the state in the High Court. The transfer petition was filed under Sections 402 and 407 of The Criminal Procedure Code, and Rule 113 of The Rajasthan High Court Rules. Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, observed, "Resultantly, the present petition is allowed, and accordingly, it is directed that criminal appeal No.18/2018 filed by complainant Punamchand relating to alleged offence under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Criminal Appeal No.22/2017 relating to alleged offence under Arms Act, 1956, both pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District shall be transferred to this Hon'ble High Court, to be heard alongwith the Criminal Leave to Appeal No.311/2018 (State of Raj. Vs. Saif Ali Khan & Ors.)." The court, however, clarified that the acquitted persons, i.e. respondents no. 3 to 7 i.e. Saif Ali Khan, Neelam, Tabu, Sonali Bendre and Dushyant Singh shall not be prejudiced by this order and shall stand protected to the extent of the mandate of the precedent law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Ramesh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana [(2017) 1 SCC 529]. The court relied on its previous decision in Salman Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Misc. Transfer Petition No.23/2011)] whereby it was laid down the law that although the provision of Sections 402 & 407 of the Cr.P.C. only refers to the revisional jurisdiction but the same analogy has to be applied in criminal appeals. It was also that laid down that when the situation of different appeals against the same judgment or in the same matter arises for consideration, then by virtue of Sections 402 & 407 of Cr.P.C, it has to be directed that all the different appeals arising out of the same judgment should be heard and decided together. The court opined that any offshoot litigation arising out of a single and common judgment, which may incongruously impact the respective parties, is bound to prejudice some of them, if different forums are adjudicating the same. Thus, in the interest of justice, it will always be safe to presume that a common order/judgment has to be adjudicated from all angles at the same level, added the court. It was noted by the court that the consolidated incident, i.e. the offences allegedly committed, relating to deer–hunting, by the petitioner, and respondents No. 3 to 7 as claimed by the prosecution, and despite different acts having been attributed to each of them, it would be unfair to all the concerned parties, to have different and possibly divergent opinions from various courts. Further, the court observed that it is only in these types of cases where it becomes justified to invoke the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court to transfer the matter from one Court to another, in view of the provisions of Sections 402 and Section 407 of the Cr.P.C., as the Court adjudicating can have a comprehensive picture of the facts while making the necessary determination in regard thereto. Considering the broader four corners of the litigation, including the version of the prosecution, the court opined that it is just and proper in the interest of justice, and for the general convenience of all the concerned parties, to allow the present transfer petition. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this Court, while taking into consideration the analogy provided under Sections 402 & 407 of the Cr.P.C., has ample powers to transfer the multiple litigation ongoing before different Courts, to a single Court, so as to enable a common and effective adjudication thereof, in view of the fact that the complete litigation arises out of the same impugned judgment. He alos submitted that the trial court has arrived at a conclusion, after taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the entire incident, involving cumulative action and consolidated chain of events. The counsels appearing on behalf of Tabu-respondent no.5 submitted that though the appeal against conviction is not directly affecting the present respondent, but that, it would certainly have an impact, because it would give strength to the criminal leave to appeal, filed by the State, which is pending before High Court. He added that if a regular criminal appeal is connected with a criminal leave to appeal, the criminal leave to appeal shall gain unwarranted credence. As per him, in that event, the scope of interference in a criminal leave to appeal, which, as per law is very limited, owing to the fact that the same stands on a lesser...

Trial Of Salman Khan's Deer Hunting Case Transferred To Rajasthan High Court

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags