Presence Of Deceased’s Relative As Court Staff Or Lawyer Not Ground To Transfer Criminal Trial: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the mere presence of a deceased person’s relative—either as court ministerial staff (e.g., a court reader) or as a practising advocate—does not by itself constitute a valid ground for transferring a criminal trial to another court.
What the Court said
-
The Bench (Justice Himanshu Joshi) observed that a court‑reader or other ministerial staff has no adjudicatory or decision‑making role; such a person is involved only in routine, administrative functions.
-
Simply because a deceased’s son is working in the same court in a ministerial capacity does not lead to a legitimate presumption that the presiding Magistrate would be influenced in the trial.
Grounds for transfer not accepted
-
The petitioner had argued that, due to the deceased’s sons being on court staff and practising advocates, local lawyers were allegedly unwilling to appear for him, and therefore the trial should be transferred.
-
The High Court rejected this, holding that these circumstances were not sufficient to attract the jurisdiction under Section 407 CrPC to transfer the criminal case; the “judicial conscience” of a Magistrate is not so fragile as to be swayed by the presence of a deceased’s relative in staff or as a counsel.
Practical implication for practitioners
-
For transfer petitions in criminal matters, the petitioner must show concrete, objective material suggesting real bias, pressure, or inability to secure competent representation, not a vague apprehension of influence arising merely from family links to staff or local advocates.
-
In Jabalpur and other Madhya Pradesh courts, this ruling reinforces that routine personnel or professional connections of a deceased’s family in the same court will not, by themselves, justify transfer of a criminal trial.
