APHC010040642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5/2024 Between: Yenda Butchanna @ Butchayya and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Bendi Annapurnaya and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5 OF 2024 ORDER: The petitioners herein have filed the present petition seeking to order transfer of C.C.No.198 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amadalavalasa, Srikaulam District to the Additional Sessions Judge Court, Srikakulam for conducting joint trial along with S.C.No.51 of 2022 in the same court. 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows: (a) The petitioners are accused in Crime No.71 of 2021 which was registered under Sections 341, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC on the file of Station House Officer, Amadalavalasa. The police filed charge sheet under Section 307 of IPC and the Court has committed the case to Sessions Court and the same was numbered as S.C.No.51 of 2022 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. (b)The 1st petitioner has gave complaint against the respondent Nos.1 to 4 before the Station House Officer, Amadalavalasa and the police registered the same as Cr.No.72 of 2021 of Station House Officer, Amadalavalasa for the offences U/Secs.326, 324 and 323 of IPC. (c) The above said crimes are counter blast crimes and both are occurred in the same village and in same transaction. The cause involves in both criminal cases are one and the same. Both incidents in two crimes have been occurred within hours of two consecutive days. (d) The present applications are filed by the petitioners U/Sec.407(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of C.C.No.198 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amadalavalasa to Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, for conducting joint trial along with S.C.No.51 of 2022. Unless, this Court will order transfer of above said crime, the petitioners will be put in irreparable loss and hardship and that the petitioners are constrained to file the present petition. 3. Heard Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and heard Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the alleged incident in Crime No.71 of 2021 was occurred at 11-00 p.m., on 07.04.2021 at the outskirts of Vanjagi Village. He would further contend that the alleged offence in Crime No.72 of 2021 has been occurred within a time gap of 3 hours i.e., at 2-00 a.m., on the very next day at early hours on 08.04.2021 and both the transactions are continued transactions and that both the cases have to be tried by one judge. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State, would submit that the date of offence and time of offence and place of offence in both the cases are different and the facts in one case are different to the facts in another case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed a reliance on Sudhir and others vs. State of M.P.1 and also Meragani Satyanarayana vs.Koppanathi Trimurthulu and another2. In the Sudhir’s case (1 supra), the Apex Court held as follows: “It is a salutary practice, when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, they are tried and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgments on the same day. Such two different versions of the same incident resulting in two criminal cases are compendiously called "case and counter case" by some High Courts and "cross cases" by some other High Courts. Way back in nineteen hundred and twenties a Division Bench of the Madras High Court (Waller, and Cornish, JJ) made a suggestion (Goriparthi Krishtamma, In re (1929 MWN 881) that 1 (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 688 2 2021(1) ALD (Crl.) 42 (AP) "a case and counter case arising out of the same affair should always, if practicable, be tried by the same court; and each party would represent themselves as having been the innocent victims of the aggression of the other." 7. Perused the material available on record. Perused the material available on record. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the date and time of alleged offence in Crime No.71 of 2021 is occurred at 11-00 p.m., on 07.04.2021 at the outskirts of Vanjangi Village and the date and time of anther alleged offence in Crime No.72 of 2021 was occurred at 2-00 a.m., near the 1st petitioner’s house. It appears that both the offences alleged to have been taken place in both these cases have not arisen out of the same transaction. Therefore, the present case does not fall within the ambit of case and counter. 8. In a case of Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors.3 Apex Court 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 (2000) 7 SCC 129 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; 3 2011 (1) SCC 307 (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.” 9. As stated supra, the date, time and place of alleged incidents in both the cases are different and the Sessions Case No.51 of 2022 has been pending before the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge at Srikakulam and another case in C.C.No.198 of 2021 has been pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amadalavalasa. Since both these alleged offences have been taken place at different places and at different times on different dates, therefore, I am of the considered view it is not desirable to consider the request of the petitioners to transfer C.C.No.198 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amadalavalasa to Additional Assistant Sessions Court at Srikakulam. 10. In the result, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the petition shall stand closed. __________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. DT.10.02.2025. PGR