Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAM CHANDER SINGH SAGAR AND ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Decided
23 January 1978
Judges listed
V.R. KRISHNA IYER (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1978] 2 S.C.R. 604 · 1978 INSC 12
Also cited as
  • (1978) 2 SCC 35 (4 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1978 SC 475 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

KRISHNA IYER, J.-The Code of Criminal Procedure clothes this Court with power under s. 406 to transfer a case or appeal from one High Court or a Court subordinate to one High Court to another High Court or to a Court subordinate thereto. But it does not clothe this Court with the power to transfer investigations from one police station to another in the country simply because the first information or a remand report is forwarded to a Court. The application before us stems from a misconception about the scope of s. 406. There is as yet no case pending before any Court as has been made clear in the counter affidavit of the State of Tamil Nadu. In the light of this counter affidavit, nothing can be done except to dismiss this petition.

p. 604, margin F

If the petitioners are being directed to appeal in a far-off Court during investigatory stage it is for them to move that Court for appropriate orders so that _they. may not be tor~ent~d J;iY lon!l travel or otherwise teased by 1ud1cial process. [f 1ust1ce is denied \here ve .other redresses, not under s. 406, though it is unfortunate that the peti- .tioners have not chosen to move that court to be absolved from appear- .ance until necessitated by the circumstances or the progress of the investigation. To come to this Court directly seeking an order of transfer is travelling along the wrong street. We are sure that if the second petitioner is ailing, as is represented, and this fact is brought to the notice of the Court which has directed her appearance, just orders will be passed in case there is veracity behind the representation. We need hardly say courts should use their processes to the purpose of ;advancing justice, not to harass parties. Anyway, so far as the petition for transfer is concerned, to borrow a cliche, the less said the better and so we dismiss it. :S.R. Petition dismissed.

pp. 604–605, margin G