ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

2. The present transfer criminal petition is filed seeking withdrawal of C.C.No.25 of 2019 from the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Criminal Cases Relating to elected MPs and MLAs, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Railway Court, Visakhapatnam.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are accused Nos.3 and 7 in C.C.No.25 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Criminal Cases Relating to elected MPs and MLAs, Vijayawada, Krishna District. They are neither elected MPs nor elected MLAs at the time of alleged offence, which took place on 11.04.2018. It is further submitted that any of accused Nos.1 to 9 is the public representative as on the date of offence. As such, the Special Judge has no jurisdiction at all. But for the reason that A.1 became an MLA after the general elections took place in the year 2019, as a mistake of fact, this Crime No.1393 of 2018 dated 11.04.2018 for the offence punishable under Section 174(A) of Railway Act of RPF Post, Visakhapatnam was transferred to present Special Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to conduct trial of offences other than the MLAs or MPs. In support of his contentions, he relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.1694 of 2020 dated 06.05.2021, wherein this Court specifically held as under:

trial of offences relating to elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, in my considered view, the Special Court will try the offences committed by both sitting and former MPs and MLAs provided as on the date of commission of offence, the accused was either a MP or a MLA. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner/accused was neither a MP nor a MLA as on the date of alleged offence i.e., 03.04.2009. On that date, he was only an aspirant for MLA of Penamaluru constituency and submitted his nomination papers wherein he allegedly withheld the information relating to his involvement in criminal case Nos.69/2002 and 99/2002. Therefore, in my considered view, the Special Court at Vijayawada will not have jurisdiction to try the said case. However, on that ground, the criminal case cannot be quashed as prayed by the petitioner. On the other hand, it is trite that C.C.No.1/2018 shall be directed to be transferred to its original Court i.e., the Court of I Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for completion of further trial and for pronouncement of judgment.=

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not disputed the facts stated by the petitioners that any of the accused is public representative at the time of alleged offence i.e., on 11.04.2018. He also submitted that the date of offence when it took place, is the criteria for having jurisdiction by the Special Court.

6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, now the issue that fell for consideration before this Court is, whether the Special Court has jurisdiction to try the offence alleged against the petitioners?

7. As a matter of fact, in the present case, the offence took place within the jurisdiction of II Metropolitan Magistrate-cum- Railway Court, Visakhapatnam, but one of the accused became an MLA after some time, due to that C.C.No.25 of 2019 was transferred to the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Criminal Cases Relating to elected MPs and MLAs, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Date of commission of offence shall be relevant factor to ascertain the applicability of the jurisdiction of the Special Court. On this aspect, the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the High Courts held that the date of commission of offence is the criteria for determination of the jurisdiction of the S