07 May 2121

The Jurisdiction of Court to conduct criminal proceedings shall be on the basis of provisions of CRPC, 1973 not on basis of Inconvenience or Convenience of the parties - Supreme Court of India

Case : Rajkumar Sabu v. M/S Sabu Trade Private Limited Transfer Petition (Criminal appeal no 17 of 2021)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Bench : Justice Aniruddha Bose

Decided on : 07 May 2121

Relevant Statutes

Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 406 and 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 113 of Trademark Act, 1999

Brief Facts and Procedural History and Brief Facts:

1. The case firstly was filed by the Respondent before the Court of Judicial Magistrate (The Salem Court) under Section 156(3) and Section 406 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the injunction to prevent the use of the trademark. The Respondent stated that there was the overuse of the trademark SACHAMOTI by the petitioner which is illegal and unauthorized.

2. The Court took cognizance under Section 113 of The Trademark Act, 1999 and Section 420 of Indian Penal code, 1860. The petitioner, later filed a suit before the High Court of Delhi for the infringement of the same trademark by the respondent. Afterwards, the counterclaim was lodged by the respondent. Both the respondent and Petitioner filed a transfer petition in the High Court of Calcutta. Further, the petitioner wants to transfer the criminal case to Patiala House Court, Delhi.

The Issue of the Case

Whether the Court has the Jurisdiction to conduct criminal Proceedings by Transfer Petition under Section 406 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

The Observations of the Court

1. The Honourable Supreme Court after hearing both sides of the case observed that on the grounds of the overlapping points, the petitioner transfer petition cannot be justified. In one of Judgment Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II), T.N. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2005 8 SCC 771), the language was not a criterion on which the transfer petition can be directed. The Honourable Supreme Court held that the proceedings before the Salem Court were not questioned because of the lack of jurisdiction instead under Section 406 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973.

2. In Another Judgment Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr. Vs.  Union of India & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 307), It was held that Jurisdiction cannot be exercised on the mere apprehension of one party that justice would not be done in this case. The petitioner plea is totally based on his convenience and this cannot be the ground for allowing the application. 

3. Under Section 406 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, transfer of a criminal case can be directed only when it is necessary for the ends of the justice. In Another Judgment Rajesh Talwar vs. CBI ((2012) 4 SCC 217 )), it was held that the Jurisdiction of the court to conduct the criminal proceedings shall be based on provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 not on the basis of convenience or inconvenience of the parties.

Decision Held by the Court

The Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition and the connected applications shall also stand disposed of.

Click here to view/download the judgement >