APHC010417852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 82/2025 Between: 1. ASWA SATHYANARAYANA, S/O.LATE SAVARANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKED AS CHIEF OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT, O/O. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY(P), NANDED, MAHARASTRA STATE. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor, C.B.I, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT may be pleased to transfer C.C.No. 10 of 2022 on the file of the court of Special Judge for CBI cases, at Kurnool to any special court existing in Vijayawada or Visakhapatnam IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No. 10 of 2022 on the file of the court of Special Judge for CBI cases, at Kurnool pending the Transfer Criminal Petition in this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M.SRAVAN KUMAR,Spl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR C.B.I. The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner herein filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., 2023, seeking transfer of C.C.No.10 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI cases, at Kurnool, to any Special Court existing in Vijayawada or Visakhapatnam, for trial and disposal of the same. 2. The case of the petitioner as per the affidavit in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.10 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Kurnool. Initially, the crime was registered by the C.B.I., Hyderabad, and the charge sheet was filed before the competent Court at Hyderabad, while he was working as Office Superintendent at Nandyal Railway Station, Kurnool District, a trap was laid against him by the C.B.I., Hyderabad, in the year 2016, subsequent to the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, after cognizance was taken and the case was numbered as C.C.No.10 of 2022, the matter was transferred to the Special Court at Visakhapatnam, where part of the trial was conducted, and thereafter transferred to the Special Court for CBI Cases at Kurnool. II. The petitioner further contended that part of the trial was conducted before the Court at Visakhapatnam, where the petitioner had engaged counsel to conduct the case. Since the said counsel had already participated in the trial proceedings at Visakhapatnam, the petitioner continued with the same counsel to conduct further proceedings at Kurnool. However, this Court dismissed the Criminal Petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of jurisdiction, along with other connected cases, and consequently, the remaining part of the trial commenced at Kurnool. III. The petitioner further submitted that as already stated, he had engaged the same counsel who had earlier conducted part of the trial at Visakhapatnam. When the trial commenced at Kurnool, the counsel was unable to attend on certain dates due to non-availability of train reservations and it takes considerable time and there are no regular flights to Kurnool to attend the proceedings, except on alternate days. As the case was being posted at very short intervals, it became very difficult either for the petitioner or for his learned counsel to cope with the posting dates, for cross-examination of witnesses. While, the learned trial Judge granted time to the prosecution, whenever it sought adjournments for producing witnesses, the same indulgence was not shown to the petitioner. On that particular occasions, when the learned counsel was unable to attend and the petitioner sought time and the learned trial Judge imposed heavy costs, around Rs.5000/- for each witness, with further enhancement upon repeated requests. The delay in the trial is not attributable to him, but it appears that the learned trial Judge is in undue haste to conclude the proceedings. IV. The petitioner further submitted that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 has already been completed, and the cross-examination of PWs 5 to 8 was scheduled on 20th & 21st August and the petitioner’s counsel was unable to cross-examine PWs 5 to 8 on the earlier date, the learned trial Judge imposed costs of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner further submits that the learned Judge is openly insisting that he should engage another counsel at Kurnool and is also intervening by alerting whenever there is any deviation by the witnesses from their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. V. The petitioner further contended that, in view of the facts stated above, the mere apprehension is the principles of justice and his right to a fair trial, which is guaranteed under the Constitution of India, may be indirectly defeated. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking transfer of C.C.No.10 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI cases, at Kurnool, to any Special Court existing in Vijayawada or Visakhapatnam. 3. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent/State. 4. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases, appearing on behalf of the respondent/State. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking transfer of C.C.No.10 of 2022, pending before the Special Judge for C.B.I. cases at Kurnool, to any Special Court at Vijayawada or Visakhapatnam. 7. 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 &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; 1 2011 (1) SCC 307 (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.” 8. As per the status report of the case filed by the petitioner herein dated 01.08.2025, both the witnesses i.e., PW-3 and PW-4, were present, the petitioner requested the cross-examination of these two witnesses, which was adjourned on the condition of payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- to PW-3 and Rs.5,000/- to PW-4. Pursuant to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 05.08.2025. Further, as per the case status dated 05.08.2025, PW-3 and PW-4 were present, and the case was again adjourned to 21.08.2025 at the request of the learned counsel for the accused, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to PW-3 and Rs.5,000/- to PW-4. As per the case status of e-Courts Website, on 21.08.2025, both the PWs 5 & 6 are present, PW-6 was cross examined and again requested time for cross examination of PW5, at request of learned counsel for accused, it was adjourned to 02.09.2025. There is no prima facie material to show that the witnesses PW’s 3 & 4 are residing at which place and from the place they have to travel to Kurnool for giving the evidence before the C.B.I. Court at Kurnool. 9. The material on record, prima facie, indicates that both witnesses were examined in chief by the Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I., cases before the learned Special Judge for C.B.I. cases at Kurnool. When the matter came up for cross-examination of PW-3 and PW-4, the case was adjourned from time to time at the request of the learned counsel for the accused, i.e., the petitioner, on payment of costs to the witnesses. 10. 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.” 11. The law is well settled that in Transfer of Criminal Cases, the Court has to be consider the convenience of the witnesses than that of the inconvenience caused to the accused. 12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merits and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioner and I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to transfer of C.C.No.10 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI cases, at Kurnool, to any Special Court existing in Vijayawada or Visakhapatnam, for trial and disposal and as such, the present Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 13. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. 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: 19.09.2025 CVD