IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.6 of 2010

DATE: 11.12.2025

BETWEEN:

State rep. by Central Bureau of Investigation,

Hyderabad Branch, rep by its Special Public Prosectuor,

High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad

…..petitioner

And

S. Ramu and others

…..Respondents

ORDER

This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner–

State seeking transfer of O.P.No.1112 of 2005, pending on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to the file

of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing for the petitioner–State, and Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned 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 2005, 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 of Session for the purpose of trial and ancillary proceedings. Therefore, keeping the O.P. before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, when the main criminal case is now pending before the Special Judge, serves no purpose. He contended that the Chief Judge, City Civil Court had earlier entertained the attachment proceedings only because no Special Court existed at that time, and once the jurisdiction is now vested in the Special Judge, the proceedings must follow the criminal case for effective and uniform adjudication. Therefore, he prayed the Court to transfer O.P.No.1112 of 2005 to the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases.

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. & Ors1, to submit 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.11 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

1 1996 (1) A.P.L.J.30 (HC)

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. Therefore, 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 Court 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 findings require that the connected O.P. also be transferred to the same Court.

6. Furthermore, the judgment relied on by the respondents does not advance their case, becasue in that case the issue was regarding jurisdictional competence between two civil fora. In contrast, the present matter concerns special statutory jurisdiction created under the PC Act, which overrides the ordinary civil jurisdiction once the case stan