Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 50 (AP)

Boreddy Ramachandraiah v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2026-01-08

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2026
ORDER : V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. The petitioner herein have filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., Act seeking to withdraw C.C.No.85 of 2013, on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool and transfer the same to any other equivalent Court or to the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore. 2. The case of the petitioner as per his affidavit in brief is as follows: I. The respondent herein filed a charge sheet for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the same is registered as C.C.No.85 of 2013, on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool. The petitioner pleaded that the said case is pending for adjudication and it has now come up for advance evidence. II. The petitioner further pleaded that the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool, has openly stated 74 times in open Court that “I will send you to jail, you spend your remaining life in jail. The jail authorities would provide all facilities to you, there is nothing to you to do here”. The petitioner pleaded that by now, the learned trial Judge has openly proclaimed 74 times that she would send the petitioner to jail, which indicates the pre- determined mind of the Court. He further pleaded that the petitioner filed two criminal miscellaneous petitions; the case in Crl.M.P.Nos.702 of 2025 was allowed with a condition that the petitioner has to enter into the witness box and depose and the case in Crl.M.P.No.703 of 2025 was allowed partly by permitting only D-1 to D-14 and refusing the examination on the remaining witnesses. III. The petitioner further pleaded that as and when the petitioner files any petition or memo, the Court below is refusing to receive the same and further there is no filing box in the Court below. He further pleaded that the Court below at the time of cross- examination did not allow the petitioner to cross-examine the facts-in-issue and vehemently refused to register the answers. He further pleaded that the Court below at the time of cross- examination did not allow the petitioner to cross-examine the facts-in-issue and vehemently refused to register the answers. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner pleaded that he lost confidence over the Presiding Officer at Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool, and as such, he do not want to continue the case in C.C.No.85 of 2013, before the Court below and in case of continuation of the case, it would put the petitioner to serious loss. As such, the petitioner is constrained to file the present transfer criminal petition seeking to withdraw C.C.No.85 of 2013 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool and transfer the same to any other equivalent Court or to the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore. 3. Heard Sri A.Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned Standing Counsel-cum- Special Public Prosecutor for ACB representing for the respondent-State and perused the record. 4. The material on record prima facie reveals that, on the complaint lodged by one Yennam Subhaskara dated 31.08.2010, a crime was registered in the year 2010, against the petitioner herein by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Kadapa Range. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid a charge-sheet before the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool, and the same was taken up on the file vide C.C.No.85 of 2013. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16 were marked on behalf of prosecution and Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-55 were marked on behalf of the A.O., before the trial Court and the prosecution evidence is completed by 22.07.2025 and C.C.No.85 of 2013, was adjourned from time to time for defence evidence/ evidence of the petitioner herein/accused. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the learned trial Judge, Kurnool, openly uttered in the Court below itself that for about 74 times by saying that she would send him to Jail, where he has to spend the remaining life and the Jail authorities would provide him all the facilities. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the learned trial Judge, Kurnool, openly uttered in the Court below itself that for about 74 times by saying that she would send him to Jail, where he has to spend the remaining life and the Jail authorities would provide him all the facilities. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the leaned Standing Counsel for SPE & ACB Cases that the present Presiding Officer assumed charge on 20.04.2025, and after assuming charge as the Presiding Officer, the very first appearance of the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.85 of 2013, before the present Presiding Officer was on 29.05.2025, and from the said date to till the date of filing the present transfer criminal petition altogether only 22 adjournments have been completed. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the present Presiding Officer assumed charge in the month of May, 2025. Therefore, there is no truth and subsistence in the aforesaid allegations raised by the petitioner. The material on record further reveals that the petitioner/accused himself conducting trial before the trial Court and the accused himself cross- examined all the witnesses. As seen from the material on record, the entire evidence of the prosecution was completed and the matter is posted for defence evidence and the petitioner herein has sought time before the Court below for about five (05) times for adducing defence evidence and the defence evidence has not been commenced by the petitioner/accused. 6. Another ground urged by the petitioner is that the petitioner is not allowed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses properly. As stated supra, the entire evidence of prosecution was completed by 22.07.2025 and till the date of filing of the present transfer criminal petition, the petitioner has not raised this type of objection before the Court below. 7. The law is well settled that “mere suspicion by the party that he will not get justice would not justify the transfer. Mere presumption of possible apprehension should not and ought not be the basis of transfer of any case from one court to another. Where, a transfer is sought by making allegation regarding integrity in respect of the Presiding Officer of the Court, this Court has to be very careful before passing any order of transfer. Mere presumption of possible apprehension should not and ought not be the basis of transfer of any case from one court to another. Where, a transfer is sought by making allegation regarding integrity in respect of the Presiding Officer of the Court, this Court has to be very careful before passing any order of transfer. The allegation of bias by mere fact of an adverse order is not sufficient to justify transfer, unless it is also substantiated by relevant material, which is not the case in hand.” 8. In a case of Captain Amarinder Singh vs Parkash Singh Badal & Ors , (2009)6 SCC 260 , while dealing with an application for a transfer petition preferred under Section 406 of Cr.P.C., a full Bench of the Apex Court has opined that “for transfer of a criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice will not be done”. It has also been observed there in that “mere an allegation that there is an apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case alone does not suffice. It is required on the part of the Court to see that the apprehension alleged is reasonable or not, for the apprehension must not only be present, but must appear to the Court to be reasonable.” In the case at hand, the apprehension raised by the petitioner is baseless. Vague and vexatious accusations without an element of truth on the working of the trial Court, which are not supported either by fact or by circumstances will not “Ipso facto”, be sufficient ground for transfer of a case. 9. In the case at hand, the allegations leveled by the petitioner against the Presiding Officer that the Presiding Officer of the Court openly uttered in the Court below itself for about 74 times by saying that “she would him to Jail” is baseless. The material available on record reveals that the present Presiding Officer assumed charge on 20.04.2025. After assuming the charge, the very first appearance of the accused was on 29.05.2025, before the present Presiding Officer and from that date to till the date of filing of the present transfer criminal petition altogether only 22 adjournments have been completed, but not 74 times as alleged by the petitioner 10. After assuming the charge, the very first appearance of the accused was on 29.05.2025, before the present Presiding Officer and from that date to till the date of filing of the present transfer criminal petition altogether only 22 adjournments have been completed, but not 74 times as alleged by the petitioner 10. Another ground urged by the petitioner is that there is no 'filing box' in the Court of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool, in such a case, it is open to the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the Principal District Judge of the concerned district. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that he has brought to the notice of the concerned Principal District Judge about not maintaining of the filing box by the office of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, at Kurnool. 11. 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. 12. 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.