Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Lakku Konda Reddy A 8, vs The State Of A.P., on 20 January, 2025
APHC010462622024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 101/2024
Between:
Lakku Konda Reddy (a - 8), ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The petitioner herein filed the present petition seeking transfer of the
proceedings in C.C.No.320 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District &
Sessions Judge Court, at Machilipatnam, Krishna District, to the file of the
Principal District & Sessions Judge
Court-cum-Special Judge for Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of
Financial Establishment Act, 1999, Ongole, Prakasam District, for trial.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
I. The petitioner herein is a accused C.C.No.320 of 2022 on the file of the
Principal District & Sessions Judge Court, at Machilipatnam, Krishna
District, and the complainant lodged a complaint before Mylavaram
Police Station, Krishna Distirct, against the petitioner/accused No.8
herein in Crime No.19 of 2014 for the offences punishable under
Sections 403, 420, 406 and 120-B r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., and under
Sections 3 and 5 of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of
Financial Establishment Act, 1999 and under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of
Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act, 1978. After
completion of investigation, the Police laid a charge sheet and the same
was numbered as C.C.No.320 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District
& Sessions Judge Court, at Machilipatnam, Krishna District and the
same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that, the
aggrieved parties lodged a number of complaints at different places and
the same were registered before the different Police Stations and
charge sheet has also filed and the same are pending for consideration
before the different Courts i.e., Guntur, Prakasam, Anathapur, Kurnool
and Srikakulam. The petitioner/accused No.8 herein further pleaded
that to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings the present matter may be
transferred to the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge Court-
cum-Special Judge for Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of
Financial Establishment Act, 1999, at Ongole, Prakasam District.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1/State would contend that there are no grounds to transfer the present
case from the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge Court, at
Machilipatnam, Krishna District, to the file of the Principal District & Sessions
Judge Court-cum-Special Judge for Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors
of Financial Establishment Act, 1999, at Ongole. He would further contend
that around 130 witnesses are cited in the charge sheet by the Police after
completion of the investigation and most of them are financially poor and dong
coolie works and also facing lot of health problems and he would further
contend that out of 130 witnesses 10 witnesses are suffering with old age
aliments. He would further contend that, if the present case is transferred from
the Principal District & Sessions Judge Court, at Machilipatnam, Krishna
District, to the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge Court-cum-
Special Judge for Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial
Establishment Act, 1999, at Ongole, Prakasam District, they will face lot of
problems in attending the Court proceedings before the trial Court both
physically and financially and that he would further contend that the present
Transfer Criminal Petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for both sides and the perused the
material available on record.
5. It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a Criminal Case,
the transfer of the case has to be accepted in exceptional cases, considering
the fact that the transfers may cast unnecessarily aspirations on the State
Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency. The Apex Court in a case of Nahar
Singh Yadav & Anr Vs Union of India & ors1 held as follows:
“24.Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide
whether or not power under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised, it is
manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the said Section and on an
analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of transfer of trial is not to be
passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed
some apprehension about the proper conduct of a trial. This power has to be
exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do
so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of the broad factors which could be kept in
mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are:
(i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove
with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the
lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution;
(ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution
witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant;
(iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused,
the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne
by the State Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the
official and non-official witnesses;
(iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability of
holding fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of
the crime committed by the accused; and
(v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some persons
are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere either directly or
indirectly with the course of justice.”
6. In the case on hand, the material part of the record clearly reveals that
almost 130 witnesses are cited in the charge sheet. Learned Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State fairly represented
that the prosecution has no objection, if the personal appearance of the
1
2011 (1) SCC 307
accused has been dispensed with before the trial Court, instead of allowing
the present petition.
7. The law is well settled in all the Transfer Criminal Cases, the Court has
to be considered the convenience of the witnesses than that of the
inconvenience caused to the accused. As per the case of the prosecution,
130 witnesses were cited in the charge sheet. Therefore, the inconvenience of
the witnesses cannot be discarded in allowing the Transfer Criminal Petitions.
However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on both
sides, the personal appearance of the petitioner/accused No.8 herein has
been dispensed with before the trial Court, “except on the days when his
personal appearance is required as per law”, before the trial Court.
8. On considering the representation made by the learned counsel
appearing for both sides, I do not find any grounds to consider the request
made by the petitioner/accused No.8 herein to transfer the C.C.No.320 of
2022 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge Court, at
Machilipatnam, Krishna District, to the file of the Principal District & Sessions
Judge Court-cum-Special Judge for Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors
of Financial Establishment Act, 1999, at Ongole, Prakasam District.
9. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is disposed
of and the personal appearance of the petitioner/accused No.8 herein has
been dispensed with before the trial Court, “except on the days when his
personal appearance is required as per law”, before the trial Court. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim
order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Date: 20.01.2025
CVD
[ad_1]
Source link