APHC010252612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 41/2025 Between: Galiparthi Venkateswara Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Y KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners herein have filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., Act, 2023, seeking transfer of the trial case in S.C.No.250 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, to any other Court at Guntur or at Vijayawada or any other Court in Guntur District, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioners as per their affidavit in brief is as follows: I. The petitioners herein are arrayed as Accused Nos.3, 4, and 7 in S.C. No.250 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, arising out of Crime No.140 of 1995, dated 01.12.1995, registered at Ongole Town Police Station. The trial in respect of Accused Nos.1 & 2 was conducted separately in S.C.No.315 of 1997 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned trial Court pronounced Judgment on 04.08.2000, convicting Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and also for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 307, 149, 147, 148, 506, and 307 read with 149 IPC, as well as Section 27(2) of the Arms Act, 1959, and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment along with other sentences. Accused No.2 was also convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B & 302 read with 149 IPC, Sections 307 read with 149 IPC, Sections 147 and 506 IPC, and Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959, and was similarly sentenced to life imprisonment along with other sentences. II. The petitioners’ who are arrayed as Accused Nos.3, 4 & 7, had filed Criminal Petition vide Crl.P.No.2656 of 2019 before this Court, seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.250 of 2017. However, this Court, vide order dated 09.01.2025, dismissed the said petition. III. The case in S.C.No.250 of 2017, is a split-up case as against the petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.3, 4 & 7 and the same is pending on the file of the Sessions Court at Ongole, Prakasam District. The case is currently posted to 12.05.2025, for examination of prosecution witnesses. This case also arises out of Crime No.140 of 1995, registered at Ongole Town Police Station. The trial against Accused Nos.1 & 2 in the same crime was conducted before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, as the case is being transferred from the Sessions Court at Ongole, Prakasam District. IV. The 1st petitioner (A-3) is a resident of Kaja Village, Mangalagiri Rural Mandal, Guntur District; the 2nd petitioner (A-4) resides at Piduguralla in Palnadu District and the 3rd petitioner (A-7) is a resident of Pidaparru Village, Kollipara Mandal, Guntur District. The places of residence of the petitioners are located at a distance of approximately 120 to 150 kilometers from Ongole. The petitioners' have to travel from their respective locations to Ongole, it is not only financially burdensome and logistically difficult, but also poses risks from a security standpoint and that the petitioners are constrained to file the present petition. 3. Heard Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. cases appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State. 4. Perused the material available on record. 5. The grounds urged by the petitioners is that seeking for transfer of Sessions case No.250 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District or any other Court at Guntur or Vijayawada, in Ongole Town is the place of the deceased, Magunta Subba Rami Reddy, who was elected as Member of Parliament from the Ongole Loksabha Constituency. Another ground urged by the petitioners for seeking transfer in the entire prosecution witnesses, who are residing in Ongole City and they are under the influence and pressure of the followers of the deceased Magunta Subba Rami Reddy and another ground urged by the petitioners seeking for transfer of the Sessions Case is that there is a serious threat as against the witnesses from speaking truth before the Court at Ongole. 6. The law is well settled that “the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjunctures and surmises.” 7. The first objection taken by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. cases, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State, is that the learned Public Prosecutor has not shown the Central Bureau of Investigation as the party/respondent in the present Transfer Criminal Petition. He would further contend that the entire investigation was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation at Chennai and the charge sheet was also laid by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the charges are also framed against the petitioners by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District and the said case is posted to today for fixing the trial schedule. 8. The Apex Court in a case of Captain Amarinder Singh vs Parkash Singh Badal & Ors 1 held as follows: 12. “…. mere allegations that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice. In other words, the court has further to see whether apprehension alleged is reasonable or not. The apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the court to be a reasonable apprehension.” 1 (2009)6 SCC 260 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that for free and fair trial, the present matter has to be transferred from Ongole to any other Sessions Court either at Guntur or Vijayawada. 10. As stated supra, the apprehension of the petitioners is that all the prosecution witnesses are residing at Ongole City and they are under the influence and pressure and the followers of the deceased Magunta Subba Rami Reddy and there is a serious threat against the witnesses from speaking truth before the Court at Ongole. No Prima facie evidence was produced before this Court to prove the said alleged apprehension, therefore, there is nothing truth in the alleged apprehension as pleaded by the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners herein approached this Court and filed a Quash Petition vide Crl.P.No.2656 of 2019, after hearing on both sides, this Court dismissed the said Quash petition on 09.01.2025. 11. The material available on record, prima facie shows that the Sessions Case is connected with the alleged incident happened in the year 1995 and 30 years have been elapsed from the date of alleged offence. The present sessions case is numbered as vide S.C.No.250 of 2017, before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, and the same is pending for fixing the trial schedule. 12. 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 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 & ors2 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.” 2 2011 (1) SCC 307 13. Another ground urged by the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 (A-3) is residing in Kaza Village in Mangalagiri Rural Mandal, the petitioner No.2(A-4) is residing in Palnadu Mandal and the petitioner No.3(A7) is residing in Guntur District and the distance between the place of residence of all the accused to the Court at Ongole is approximately 120 Kms, that is also another ground sought by the petitioners seeking transfer of the said case. 14. The law is well settled that in Transfer of Criminal Cases, the Court has to be considered the convenience of the witnesses than that of the inconvenience caused to the accused. 15. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merits and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioners and I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to transfer the case in S.C.No.250 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, to any other Court at Guntur or at Vijayawada or any other Court in Guntur District and as such, the present Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 16. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. 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: 18.06.2025 CVD