Kattubadi Rathnam v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Appeal filed under section 407 of Cr.P.C, praying that the High Court may be pleased to withdraw vide i) C.C.No.28 of 2022 pending on the file of ii) C.C.No.1229 of 2022 pending on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Tirupati iii) C.C.No. 1369/2021 and C.C.No.1370/2021 pending on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Classat Kadapa, Kadapa District iv) C.C.No.108/2022, C.C.No.109/2022 and C.C.No.3776/2022 pending the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Pileru, Annamayya District Chittoor Pakala, District, transfer the same to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Rajampeta, Kadapa District I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 R Petition of C.P.C.,praying under Section 407 (6) circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including presence of the petitioner in i) C.C.No.28 of 2022 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Pakala, Chittoor District, ii) C.C.No.1229 of 2022 pending on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Tirupati iii) C.C.No. 1369/2021 and C.C.No. 1370/2021 pending on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kadapa, Kadapa District iv) C.C.No.108/2022, C.C.No. 109/2022 and C.C.No.3776/2022 pending on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Pileru, Chittoor District pending disposal of the above Tr.CrI. Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PRATHIWADA VARUN KUMAR ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. PRATHIWADA VARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER It THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.38 of 2024 ORDER: The petitioner herein have filed the present petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to withdraw vide i) C.C.No.28 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Pakala, Chittoor District, ii) C.C.No.1229 of 2022, on Additional Junior Civil Judge at Tirupati, iii) C.C.Nos.1369 and 1370 of 2021, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kadapa, Kadapa District, iv) C.C.Nos.108, 109 and 3776 of 2022, on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Pileru, Chittior District and transfer the same to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Rajampeta, Kadapa District.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows; I. The Police had registered seven (07) similar types of cases against the petitioner in the entire Rayalaseema District and in order to attend the said case proceedings, the petitioner has to travel from Rayachoty 'to different Courts at Rayalaseema district. As the case proceedings in all the aforesaid cases are listing on a similar day, the petitioner herein was constrained to file the present Transfer Criminal Petition seeking transfer of all 2 ' the seven (07) cases pending against him to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Rajampeta. Kadapa District for trial and disposal.

3. Heard Sri Prathiwada Varun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Burlu Chandra Sekhar, etamed Assistant Pubiic Prosecutor representing on behaif of the iearned Pubiic Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that originally petitioner/accused was eniarged on baii in aii the aforesaid seven (07) cases and subsequently, due to non attendance of the petitioner before the respective Courts, a Non-Baiiabie Warrant was issued against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.28 of 2022 , on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Pakala Chittoor District and thereby he opposed to allow the present Transfer Criminal Petition.

5. The material record facie shows that petitioner/accused has involved in seven (07) cases for similar offences alleged to have been committed at different places in Rayalaseema District and the same are pending before the respective competent Courts having jurisdiction over the places, at alleged offences committed petitioner/accused. It is observed that the witness in all the seven i^?^cases pending against the petitioner are staying at different places 3 in Rayalaseema District and if these cases are transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Rajampeta, Kadapa District, the witnesses in those cases have to travel from different places at Rayalseema District to Rajampeta, Kadapa District for attending the Court proceedings. Further, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that originally the petitioner/accused was enlarged on bail in all the aforesaid seven (07) cases and subsequently, due to non attendance of the petitioner before the respective Courts, a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.28 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Pakala, Chittoor District.

6. 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 State Judiciary Prosecution Agency. The Apex Court in a case of Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr Vs Union of India & ors^ 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 ^ 2011(1)see 307 - ) 4 ^3 .V % This power has to be apprehension about the proper conduct of a trial. 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.”

7. In the case on hand, it is observed that admittedly, the petitioner was enlarged on bail, but due to non appearance of the petitioner before the respective Courts, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued to him by the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Pakala, Chittoor District in C.C.No.28 of 2022 and if all the seven cases which are pending against the petitioner/accused are transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Rajampeta, Kadapa District, then all the witnesses in the aforesaid ra.«?es has to 5 travel from different places at Rayalaseema District to Rajampeta, Kadapa District, which would cause inconvenience to the witnesses in the aforesaid cases.

8. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law that while transferring a Criminal Case, the transfer of the case has to be accepted in exceptional cases. considering transfers may unnecessarily aspirations on the State Judiciary and the Prosecution Agency. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioner and as such the present Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

9. 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. //TRUE COPY// Sd/-P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, . The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Pakala, Chittoor District 1

2. The Spl Judicial Magistrate of First Class for PROH,& Excise Offennces at Kadapa, District 3 The Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Pileru, \

4. OneCCto SRI. P RATH IWADA VAR UN KUMAR, Advocate [OP UC]

5. One CO to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT]

6. Three CD Copies SD HIGH COURT DATED:05/11/2024 ORDER TRCRLP.No.38 of 2024 OP Ai.^ ■=>j ■s: 07MAY \ A it ^ '|.v- 2025 I --x. '■ e,-5 DISMISSING THE TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION