The Allahabad High Court recently clarified a crucial procedural rule for criminal trials: an order passed by a Sessions Judge transferring a case cannot be challenged by filing a fresh transfer application under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Instead, the aggrieved party must invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi pointed out this technical flaw in the applicant's legal approach. However, in the interest of justice, the Court chose not to dismiss the matter on this procedural ground alone. Instead, the judge opted to examine the actual merits of the dispute, which centered on whether a trial can be transferred to a judge who has already recorded the initial evidence.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around Sessions Trial No. 2707 of 2024, stemming from an FIR registered in 2013 at Gomti Nagar Police Station, Lucknow. The trial initially took place in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge ATS, presided over by Judge Abhinay Kumar Mishra. During his tenure, Judge Mishra recorded the testimony of nine prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-9).
Later, Judge Mishra was transferred to Court No. 4 as Special Judge Gangsters Act within the same Sessions Division. Following his transfer, the opposite party filed an application seeking to move the trial to Judge Mishra's new court. They argued that letting the same judge hear the case would advance judicial continuity, ensure proper appreciation of evidence, and save court resources. The Sessions Judge allowed this transfer application on June 29, 2026.
The Applicant's Stand
Satyendra Nath Shukla, the applicant, strongly opposed this move before the High Court. He argued that after Judge Mishra's transfer, the new judge who took over the ATS court had already recorded the testimony of PW-10. He pointed out that Section 326 CrPC allows a succeeding judge to continue a trial from the stage it was left at. The applicant noted that no allegations of bias were made against the new presiding officer, making the transfer unnecessary.
Court Observation
Justice Vidyarthi noted that the applicant had wrongly filed the petition under Section 407 CrPC. The bench observed,
“When a transfer application filed under Section 408 CrPC is allowed by the Sessions Judge, the person aggrieved by the transfer order cannot challenge the same by filing another application under section 407 CrPC.”
The court clarified that the validity of such a transfer order can only be challenged by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
Choosing to overlook this technical flaw, the judge examined the merits of the dispute. The High Court observed that both the original court and the transferee court had the legal jurisdiction to try the case. Emphasizing the importance of watching witness demeanor, the bench noted that the original presiding officer had “the advantage of watching the demeanor of nine prosecution witnesses.”
The court noted that the Sessions Judge used his discretion properly to allocate the trial to a competent court where the presiding officer was already familiar with the bulk of the factual evidence.
Decision
The Allahabad High Court concluded that the Sessions Judge's transfer order did not abuse the legal process or defeat the ends of justice.
Finding no legal error in the decision to prioritize judicial continuity, the court dismissed the petition.
Case Details:
Case Title: Satyendra Nath Shukla vs State of U.P.
Case Number: Transfer Application (Criminal) No. - 79 of 2026
Judge: Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Decision Date: July 7, 2026
