Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals
Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals. Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court- (a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or (b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or (c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court-
(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or
(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or
(c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice,
it may order-
(i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under sections 177 to 185 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence;
(ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction ;
(iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session ; or
(iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself.
(2) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative :
Provided that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him.
(3) Every application for an order under sub-section (1) shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Advocate-General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.
(4) When such application is made by an accused person, the High Court may direct him to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for the payment of any compensation which the High Court may award under sub-section (7).
(5) Every accused person making such application shall give to the Public Prosecutor notice in writing of the application, together with copy of the grounds on which it is made; and no order shall be made on of the merits of the application unless at least twenty-four hours have elapsed between the giving of such notice and the hearing of the application.
(6) Where the application is for the transfer of a case or appeal from any subordinate Court, the High Court may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice, order that, pending the disposal of the application, the proceedings
in the subordinate Court shall be stayed, on such terms as the High Court may think fit to impose:
Provided that such stay shall not affect the subordinate Court's power of remand under section 309.
(7) Where an application for an order under sub-section (1) is dismissed, the High Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case.
(8) When the High Court orders under sub-section (1) that a case be transferred from any Court for trial before itself, it shall observe in such trial the same procedure which that Court would have observed if the case had not been so transferred.
(9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any order of Government under section 197.
Section 407, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 447 Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the constitutional power under Article 142 to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another to remedy procedural defects and ensure complete justice, even when the High Court has statutory power under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code to do so. This power can be exercised when crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution have allegedly been committed and the accused persons have not been brought to book largely because of procedural defects and the conduct of the investigating agency. The transfer does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution because the procedure established by law itself contemplates such transfers under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a non-obstante clause in Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code distinguishes this case from cases where substantive rights are infringed. Additionally, criminal conspiracy charges already contained in a joint charge sheet cannot be separated from the accused persons by discharging them, and all offences committed in the course of the same transaction to accomplish a conspiracy must be tried jointly.
On this section: Power of High Court to transfer cases - the Court held that while the High Court has this power, the Supreme Court can also exercise Article 142 to achieve the same end
-
C. Muniappan vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is multi-faceted: (1) Charges under Section 188 IPC cannot be framed without written complaint by competent public servant as mandated by Section 195 CrPC, and absence of such complaint renders those charges void ab initio. However, such procedural defect does not vitiate the entire prosecution case or other charges if sufficient evidence exists for those charges. (2) Test identification parade is primarily an investigative tool and corroborative evidence, not substantive evidence. Actual evidence is the court testimony of witnesses. Identification parade is reliable when conducted properly without prior exposure of accused to witnesses, and when witnesses have direct observation opportunity. (3) Evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in toto; relevant parts consistent with prosecution or defence case can be relied upon after close scrutiny. (4) Defective investigation does not automatically lead to acquittal; court must examine evidence independently of investigation lapses to determine reliability. (5) Death sentence is warranted in rarest of rare cases involving planned, brutal crimes with exceptional depravity targeting helpless victims, where collective conscience is shocked, and no mitigating circumstances exist. Life imprisonment is the rule; death penalty is exception. (6) Two separate FIRs arising from same incident can be clubbed into one charge sheet if they are part of continuous sequence of events.
On this section: Transfer of case - discussed grounds for transfer of trial from Krishnagiri to Coimbatore
-
Babu Velleriyan v. State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2020-07-15 DATE VERIFIED. Tr.P(Crl.) 32/2020. V.G. Arun J. Isolates CrPC 407: quotes 407(a)(b)(c); a High Court correction of the trial judge’s earlier order does not create deemed prejudice for transfer; no specific instance of prejudice was shown. Map crpc 407 cited + bnss 447 successor (near-identical 0.9867). Famous Amarinder Singh SC PDF remains ROP-only.
On this section: CrPC 407 transfer needs a concrete 407(a)–(c) ground; High Court interference with a trial judge’s earlier order is not deemed prejudice (Babu Velleriyan).
-
Vishal Yadav v. State of U.P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2003-02-19 DATE VERIFIED. Crl.M.(M) 592/2003 & 593/2003. R.C. Chopra J. Nitish Katara trial. Isolates CrPC 407: mere adverse trial orders or observations are not a ground to transfer from the trial judge; a pending CrPC 406 petition in the Supreme Court does not bar a 407 petition about an intra-Delhi transfer. Map crpc 407 cited + bnss 447 successor (near-identical 0.9867). Do not pad crpc 406/408/482 (already filled).
On this section: CrPC 407 transfer cannot rest on mere adverse orders or courtroom observations (Vishal Yadav).
-
Indian Music Industry vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A transfer application under Section 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, must be supported by an affidavit as mandated by Section 408(3) read with Section 407(3), and non-compliance with this mandatory requirement is fatal and renders the application not entertainable. Additionally, when a Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 408 to transfer a case, he must record explicit reasons for such transfer as required by Section 412 of the CrPC, and mere reference to or reliance upon previous orders without independent reasoning does not satisfy this requirement.
On this section: Mandates that an application for transfer must be supported by an affidavit; this requirement is made applicable to Sessions Judge applications through Section 408(3)
-
Manepalli Mohana Rao vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When similar criminal offences are registered against the same accused within a short period from different police stations, and there is evidence of potential abuse of process to prevent the accused from claiming procedural benefits, the High Court may exercise its discretionary power under Section 407 CrPC to transfer and consolidate such cases to a single court for simultaneous trial, particularly when such consolidation would promote judicial efficiency, prevent abuse of process, and ensure witness convenience.
On this section: Transfer of cases from one court to another - the primary procedural provision under which the High Court granted the transfer petition
-
Avvaru Subbarayudu vs The State of A.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The police will resort to arrest of the accused only when prima facie case is found against any of the accused. Till then, on mere report of the defacto-complainant, law does not permit arresting the named accused persons straight away without there being prima facie proof of the allegations made against them. Criminal petitions seeking to compel arrest and interrogation of accused persons without prima facie evidence constitute abuse of the process of the High Court and abuse of Section 482 CrPC and are not maintainable.
On this section: Transfer of cases - court held this section has no application as there is no enquiry or trial pending in any criminal court
-
K. Velu vs Thyagarajan Kuppuswamy
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Language barrier and difficulty in deposing in court language do not constitute valid grounds for transfer of criminal case from a court of competent jurisdiction to another court, as Section 277 CrPC provides adequate statutory procedure for trial court to address such difficulties during the course of trial.
On this section: Provides authority for High Court to transfer criminal cases from one court to another; the statutory basis for the transfer petition filed by petitioner
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… a Special Court is established, be taken cognizance of and tried by a Court of Session exercising jurisdiction over the area, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): Provided that nothing contained in this section shall affect the powers of the High Court under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) to transfer any case or class of cases taken cognizance by a Court of Session under this section.''. 10. Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, whilst appearing on behalf of the SEBI, laid the foundation of her submissions by asserting, …
-
… a Special Court is established, be taken cognizance of and tried by a Court of Session exercising jurisdiction over the area, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): Provided that nothing contained in this section shall affect the powers of the High Court under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) to transfer any case or class of cases taken cognizance by a Court of Session under this section.''. 10. Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, whilst appearing on behalf of the SEBI, laid the foundation of her submissions by asserting, …
-
… the learned Public Prosecutor as well. - 6.After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that the instant petition cannot be sustained as it does not appear that the petitioner had moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge prior to approaching this Court. The proviso to sub-clause (2) of Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same Sessions Division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him. In other words, …
Questions about Section 407
What have the courts held on Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh (19 Apr 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Power of High Court to transfer cases - the Court held that while the High Court has this power, the Supreme Court can also exercise Article 142 to achieve the same end. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 407, section 407 CRPC, section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh (19 Apr 2017).
What should I read with Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 177 (Ordinary place of inquiry and trial), section 185 (Power to order cases to be tried in different sessions divisions), section 197 (Prosecution of Judges and public servants), section 309 (Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 447 (Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 407, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.