Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Regarding the prayer (ii) the learned counsel has produced a judgement titled as Vijay Madanial Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India and Others. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, the Supreme Court has observed and held as under :-

" 366. In the context of this provision, it was emphatically argued before us by the petitioners that it would take away one right of appeal, otherwise available under the 1973 Code. Resultantly Section 44(1) (c) of the 2002 Act in particular, is unconstitutional. To buttress this submission, reliance has been placed on the dictum in A.R. Antulay570. However, this ground need not detain us in view of the just stand taken by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of India relying on the decision of this Court in State (Through Central Bureau of Investigation) vs. Kalyan Singh (Former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh) & Ors.571, which 570 Supra at Footnote No.134 571 (2017) 7 SCC 444 has considered similar challenge. The latter decision has distinguished the exposition in A.R. Antulay 572. In that, the core issue considered in A.R. Antulay573 was whether the High Court was competent to transfer the criminal trial pending before the Special Court dealing with the offence of PC Act, to itself by invoking powers under Section 407 of the 1973 Code. The Court answered the same in the negative and held that such power does not exist in the High Court and it would inevitably violate Article 21 of the Constitution. However, we are dealing with the dispensation provided by the law made by the Parliament in the form of 2002 Act. This being a special legislation and keeping in view the purport of Sections 65 and 71 of the 2002 Act, it is not possible to countenance the ground of challenge under consideration. We may usefully refer to paragraph 28 of Kalyan Singh 574, which reads thus:

"28. In the present case, the power of transfer is being exercised to transfer a case from one Special Judge to another Special Judge, and not to the High Court. The fact that one Special Judge happens to be a Magistrate, whereas the other Special Judge has committed the case to a Court of Session would not make any difference as, as has been stated hereinabove, even a right of appeal from a Magistrate 572 Supra at Footnote No.134 573 Supra at Footnote No.134 574 Supra at Footnote No.571 to the Sessions Court, and from the Sessions Court to the High Court could be taken away under the procedure established by law i.e. by virtue of Sections 407(1) and (8) if the case is required to be transferred from the Magistrate at Rae Bareilly to the High Court itself. Hence, under Section 407, even if 2 tiers of appeal are done away with, there is no infraction of Article 21 as such taking away of the right of appeal is expressly contemplated by Section 407(1)(iv) read with Section 407(8). In the circumstances, Antulay575 judgment which dealt with the right of a substantive appeal from a Special Judge to the High Court being taken away by an order of transfer contrary to the non obstante clause in Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 would not apply in the facts and circumstances before us."