THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.44 of 2026

ORDER:

The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS, 2023’), seeking to withdraw S.C.No.315 of 2018, on the file of the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, SPSR Nellore District, and to transfer the same to the file of any other Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tirupati, Chittoor District, for trial and disposal.

2. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent No.1.

3. Perused the record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that originally S.C.No.315 of 2018, on the file of the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, SPSR Nellore District, was posted for judgment on 13.03.2026, but the prosecution filed a petition on 12.03.2026 to reopen and recall the case, to mark the consumer application, which was already filed along with the charge sheet, as an exhibit, on hearing both sides that application was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the scope of reopening and recall of the witness is very limited, and subsequent to the examination of the Investigating Officer, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the arguments of the accused were heard.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the matter has been listed tomorrow i.e., on 01.04.2026, for submission of arguments by accused No.7.

7. As can be seen from the material on record, it is evident that sessions case is of the year 2018 is now pending for arguments, and the sessions case for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC has been pending for eight years before the learned Sessions Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.

8. The ground urged by the petitioner/accused No.1 in the affidavit filed by him for seeking transfer of the sessions case from Gudur to any other Court at Tirupati is that, after recalling the witness, i.e., the Investigating Officer, and after completion of his evidence, the Investigating Officer went to the chambers of the Presiding Officer/learned Sessions Judge and discussed the case with the Presiding Officer for more than one hour. As can be seen from the affidavit of the petitioner, no prima facie material has been placed on record to substantiate the allegation that the Investigating Officer entered the chambers of the Presiding Officer/learned Sessions Judge and discussed the sessions case pending before the Court for more than one hour. The said contention remains a mere bald assertion. Admittedly, no prima facie material has been placed by the petitioner to show that the Presiding Officer/learned Sessions Judge is acting unfairly or is influenced by any extraneous considerations.

9. The apprehension of the petitioner herein/accused No.1 is that the learned Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer of the Additional District Court, Gudur, personally discussed the sessions case pending before the said Court with the Investigating Officer for more than one hour in his chambers, and that the petitioner felt that the Investigating Officer influenced the mind of the Presiding Officer.

10. The law is well settled that mere apprehension is not a ground for seeking transfer of sessions case or any other case, from one place to another without any prima facie evidence or material. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that even after completion of the trial, the accused used to threaten the witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said allegations are baseless.

11. The Apex Court in a case of Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr Vs Union of India &ors, 2011 (1) SCC 307 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