APHC010108842026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 39/2026 Between: 1. KONDAPALLI SATISH, S/O. RAMBABU,AGED 46 YEARS, C/ RAJAKA,PKM COLONY, MAALAKAPATNAM,MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHITHROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,R. PETA POLICE STATION,MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. JAWADI VENKATA JHANSI RANI, W/O. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, AGED 55 YEARS, C/ VYSYA,D.NO. 4/517-1, RAJUPETA,MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. DEFACTO COMPLAINANTCELL 92470 25444 6301729532 ...RESPONDENT(S): pleased to TRANSFER the S.C.No.116 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam to the file of Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Podili, Prakasam District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 2 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 of all further proceedings the S.C.No.116 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam, pending disposal of the above main transfer application, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K.M.PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.39 of 2026 ORDER: The petitioners filed the present petition under Section 447 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS, 2023’), seeking to transfer S.C.No.116 of 2024, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, to the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Podili, Prakasam District, for trial and disposal. On 09.03.2026, the petitioner filed a memo before the Registry stating that due to oversight and typographical mistake the prayer part was wrongly typed as Podili, Prakasam District instead of any other district in Prakasam or Guntur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent No.1. 3. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the counsel on record before the trial Court filed a memo on 11.02.2026 giving up his vakalath and that the petitioner requested time to appoint a new counsel to defend his case. The contention of the petitioner is that no sufficient time has been granted to the 4 petitioner for engaging a counsel. The further contention of the petitioner is that he filed a memo on 01.02.2026 before the trial Court stating that he has no faith in the Court and that he wants to file a transfer petition before this Court seeking transfer of the matter to some other Court. 5. As seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioner on 11.02.2026, the petitioner/accused and three witnesses for the prosecution were present before the trial Court at Machilipatnam. On that day, the learned counsel for the accused gave up his memo of appearance. The accused filed a petition for seeking time to engage an advocate. On considering his application, the learned trial Judge granted time till 17.02.2026 for appointing a new counsel and the examination of the three witnesses was postponed to 17.02.2026. It was further pleaded by the petitioner in the affidavit, in paragraph No.14, that without granting time liberally to appoint a new counsel to defend the case, the trial Court commenced the trial and continued the same in spite of the request for grant of time, as if there was every urgency in the disposal of the same. 6. As can be seen from the E-Courts website, the alleged crime relates to the year 2020. The charge sheet has been filed by the concerned police in the year 2020 before the learned Magistrate. The charge under Section 302 IPC has been framed by the learned 5 District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, on 20.11.2024. Subsequently, the matter was posted to 09.12.2024 for trial. After framing of charges by the trial Judge, nearly 22 adjournments i.e., more than one year was granted to the petitioner/accused. The contention of the petitioner that no sufficient time has been granted to the petitioner for engaging a counsel is untenable and baseless. After giving up the vakalath by the counsel for accused before the trial Court, the trial Court has granted more than ten adjournments, till now the counsel was not appointed by the accused before the trial Court for the reasons best known to him. But he engaged a counsel before the High Court for filing a transfer application for transfer of the case from Machilipatnam to Guntur or Prakasam District. The E-Courts website shows that the Public Prosecutor of the Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam on 02.03.2026, requested the trial Court to grant time for filing objections on the memo filed by accused and later filed objections, when the Public Prosecutor of that Court intends to serve the objections on the accused, but the accused refused to receive the said copy of objections and on hearing, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the objections raised by petitioner. 7. The material on record clearly shows that the petitioner/accused and all the witnesses are residents of 6 Machilipatnam and the case was registered by Robertsonpeta Police Station, Machilipatnam, after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court, and the case was thereafter committed to the Sessions Court. It is not the case either of the parties that they are residing at Guntur or Prakasam District. The law is well settled that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The cause of action and the alleged offence, as per the ‘First Information Report’, are alleged to have arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court. 8. The petitioner pleaded in the affidavit that without giving reasonable time to engage a counsel, the trial Court proceeded further and four witnesses were examined and that he lost faith on the trial Court. Objections filed by the prosecution on the memo filed by accused, the accused refused to receive the notice on the objections filed by prosecution. The learned trial Judge passed a separate order by rejecting the memo filed by accused. As stated supra, except making bald allegations in the affidavit, no prima facie material has been placed before this Court to show that the Presiding Officer of the Sessions Court acted unfairly or was influenced by any extraneous considerations. As notice supra after filing of the memo by counsel on record before the trial Court 7 granted more than ten adjournments to engage a counsel but he failed to do so, but he engaged a counsel before the High Court for filing a transfer petition for transfer of case from Machilipatnam to Guntur or Prakasam District. 9. 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 1 2011 (1) SCC 307 8 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.” 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any grounds to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer the case from Machilipatnam to Guntur or Prakasam District. 9 11. Accordingly, this Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. 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: 10.03.2026 MH 10 86 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITON No.39 of 2026 Date: 10.03.2026 MH