State v. 1. Sri S.Ramu

7. sri Firoz Hussain Kanchawala,, s/o Tayyab Ali, Ryo H.No.5-3-g45, Nizamshahi Road, Hyderabad.

8. Sri Harivinder singh,, s/o Jagat singh, R/o c-761, vikaspuri, New Delhi - 1g. 9. sri Mustafa H.Bakkalla,, s/o Hussain M.Bakkalla, Flat No.1, 104, Hazrat Peeranpeer Building, New Nagpada Road, Mumbai. ,] I I I I I I ! .f,

10.Smt. Yasmin Bakkalla,, W/o Sri N/ustafa H.Bakkalla, Flat No.1; 1O4, Hazrat Peeranperer Building, New Nagpada Road, ftlumbai. ...RESPONDENTS Petition tjnder Section 407 of Cr.P.C. to transfer of O.P.No.111212005 on the file of the Cr>urt of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad to the Court of the Special Judge constituted to Try CBI Cases, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2,010(TRCRLPMP. NO: 9 OF 2010) Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct stay of all furthr:r proceedings in O.P.No.111212005 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge, Cir.y Civil Courts, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Tr.Crl.P. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SRINIVAS KAPATIA (SPCL PP FOR CBI ),Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Sharth Sanghi Advocate for the Respondents. The Gourt made the following: ORDER / IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OT'TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO:6 Of 2O1O DATE: LL.L2.2O2S BETWEEN i:, State rep. by Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Branch, rep by its Special Public Prosectuor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad S. Ramu and others .petitioner .....Respondents And ORDER This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner- state seeking transfer of o.P.No.lll2 of 2005, pending on the Iile of the chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad, to the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. *-+/ i..,,*-- i' i \ I I 2 , sKs,J Tr.Crl.P.ll[o.6 of 20 1O

2. Heard Sri Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special public Prosecutr)r for CBI appearing for the petitioner-State, and Sri Sharad S,ang1hi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Leilrned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that after constitution of the Special Courts for trial of CBI cases, C.C.No.11 of 2006, which is connected with O.P.No.1112 of 2OO5, has already been transferred to the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases" He further submitted that under Section 5(6) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Special Judge is vested with all powers of a Civil Court as well as a Court o[ Session for the purpose of trial and ancillary proceedi:rgs. Therefore, keeping the O.P. before the Chief J0dge, C)ity Civil Court, when the main criminal case is now pending before the Special Judge, serves no purpose. He contendr:d that the Chief Judge, City Civil Court had earlier entertairred the attachment proceedings only because no Special Oourt existed at that time, and once the jurisdiction is now vesl:ed in the Special Judge, the proceedings must follow the crinrinal case for effective and uniform adjudication. Therefor=, he prayed the Court to transfer O.P.No. lll2 of 20O5 to the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases. 3 sKs,J Tr.Crl.P.I$o.6 of 201O

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the transfer contending that the attachment proceedings were originally initiated before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, who alone should adjudicate objections. He further submitted that the reasons assigned in the transfer petition are insufficient, and that under Section 13 of the A.P. Civil Courts Act/Ordinance, the District Judge is empowered to deal with such applications. He relied on the judgment of this Court in Madanamma v. The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. & Orsl, to subrnit that jurisdiction once validly assumed by a civil court need not be displaced unless compelling reasons exist. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Transfer Criminal Petition.

5. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, initially, it is not in dispute that C.C. No.ll of 2006, arising out of CBI investigation, is now pending before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, and that the present O.P. pertains to attachment and related proceedings arising out of the same crime. Further, under Section 5(6) of the Prevention of 'rggo (r) A.P.t.J.3o (Hc) *-.Y 1 l 4 sKs,J Tr.Crl.P.No.6 of 2O1O Corruption Act, 1988, the Special Judge has all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of criminal trial, including deciding questions incidental or ancillary to the proceedings. Therefor,:, the Special Judge is fully competent to adjudicate the present O.P. The attachment proceedings were earlier taken up by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court only because the Special Oourt had not been constituted at that time. Once the main criminal case has been transferred to the Special Court, consistency, judicial discipline, and avoidance of conflicting Iindings require that. the connected. O.P. also be transferred to the samr: Court.

6. Furthermore, the judgment relied on by the respondents ddes not advance their case, becasue in that case the issue was regarding jurisdictional competence between two civil fora. In contrast, the present matter concerns speciai statutory jurisdiction created under the PC Act, which overrides the ordinary civil jurisdiction once the case stands committed to the Special Judge. If the case is transferred to the CBI Court, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents, and all tJ,e remedies available before the City Civil Court can equally be raised be'fore the CBI Court. 5 sKs,J T!.Crl.P.I{o.6 of 2O1O

7.In view thereof, and considering that the O.P. is intrinsically connected with C.C. No.11 of 2006 already pending before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, this Court is of the opinion that both matters be tried by the same Court.

8. Accordingly, this Transfer Criminal Petition is allowed. O.P.No: Lll2 of 2O05, Shall stand transferred from the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to the Iile of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The Court concerned is hereby directed to transmit the entire case {ile relating to O.P.No.lll2 of 2005, after duly indexed, within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, under intimation to the other side. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR ,,TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To,

1. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad: 3. one cc to sni.tnir.lvns xnpArrA (sPcL ry-fgR cBl ) [oPUC] 4. One CC to SRt. SHARAD SANGHI Advocate IOPUC] S.Two CD CoPies TUSA ({ HIGH COURT DATED:1 11121it025 ORDER TRCRLP.No.6 cf 2010 4 STA \ ?1 Jrr 2[2$ I i I ALLOWING TI-IE TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION. \ dekYv-