Devendra Kumar Saxena v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Others
Background
A retired Chief Engineer of the Central Public Works Department, an accused in two separate CBI corruption cases pending before the Special Judge (CBI) at Siliguri, West Bengal, sought to have both cases transferred to a court in New Delhi. He argued that, at around 70 years of age and having suffered a paralytic attack and brain stroke, he could not travel or attend trial in Siliguri without an attendant. The CBI and his co-accused (including his wife, a co-accused in one of the cases) opposed the transfer, pointing out that the co-accused were themselves elderly and unwell and that a transfer would make their defence harder, and that many prosecution witnesses had already been examined.
Decision Breakdown
The Court held that while it sympathized with the petitioner's health condition and accepted that an accused's right to a fair trial includes meaningful personal participation that technology cannot fully replace, the same reasoning applied equally to his co-accused, who could not reasonably be made to travel to Delhi to defend themselves. Since the case had already progressed substantially (32 of 115 witnesses already examined in one case) and transferring only one of the two linked cases while not the other made little sense, the Court declined to transfer either case. Instead, it directed the trial court to take note of the petitioner's health, dispense with his personal appearance except when necessary, and consider permitting his virtual participation if the facility was available.
Lesson Learnt
A litigant's health or personal hardship is a relevant factor in deciding where a criminal trial should be held, but courts must also weigh the fairness to co-accused and the stage the trial has reached; practical accommodations like exemption from personal appearance or virtual participation can address hardship without disrupting the trial's venue.