APHC010469962024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 96/2024 Between: A Ramesh Babu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap 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 under Section 447 of B.N.S.S. Act, 2023, seeking transfer of the case proceedings in S.C.No.71 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge Court-cum-Special Judge for Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999, at Ananthapuramu, 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 accused No.7 in S.C.No.71 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge Court-cum-Special Judge for Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999, at Ananthapuramu and the complainant lodged a complaint in Crime No.237 of 2013 before Nandyal I Town Police Station, Ananthapuramu, against the petitioner/accused No.7 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 420, 406 and 120-B r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., and under Section 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, Police laid a charge sheet and the same was numbered as S.C.No.71 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge Court-cum-Special Judge for Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999, at Ananthapuramu and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner/accused No.7 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., Prakasam, Ananthapur. The petitioner/accused No.7 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, 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-cum-Special Judge for Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999, at Ananthapuramu, 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. He would further contend that around forty (40) witnesses are cited in the charge sheet by the Police after completion of the investigation and most of them are financially poor and doing their coolie works and he would further contend that the distance between Ananthapuramu and Ongole is more than 360 Kms, it is very difficult for them to travel from Ananthpuramu to Ongole, because they are financially poor and doing their coolie works at different places. He would further contend that, if the present case is transferred from the Principal District & Sessions Judge Court-cum-Special Judge for Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999, at Ananthpuramu, 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, 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; 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.” 6. In the case on hand, the material part of the record clearly reveals that almost forty (40) witnesses are cited in the charge sheet and most of them are financially poor and doing their coolie works and he would further contend that the distance between Ananthapuramu and Ongole is more than 360 Kms, it is very difficult for them to travel from Ananthpuramu to Ongole because they are financially poor and doing their coolie works at different places. 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 petitioner/accused No.7 has been dispensed with before the trial Court, instead of allowing the present transfer criminal 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, forty (40) witnesses were cited in the charge sheet and most of them are financially poor and facing lot of problems. 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.7 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.7 herein to transfer the S.C.No.71 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge Court-cum-Special Judge for Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999, at Ananthapuramu, 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. 9. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is disposed of and the personal appearance of the petitioner/accused No.7 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