THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.24 of 2025

ORDER:

This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner to transfer C.C.No.573 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad.

2. Heard Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was being denied a fair trial before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thorrur. He further submitted that though seven witnesses had been examined, the Investigating Officer was examined prematurely, making it difficult for the defence to bring out omissions and contradictions, and despite bringing this to the notice of the trial Court, the proceedings continued. He contended that the trial Court had gone to the extent of instructing the Public Prosecutor to prepare P.W.4 and was actively assisting the prosecution during cross-examination, without properly recording omissions and contradictions. He further contended that the conduct of the trial Court created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the Principal District Judge had wrongly dismissed the transfer petition by relying merely on the length of cross-examination, without considering the petitioner’s grievance that crucial contradictions were not being recorded. Therefore, he prayed the Court to transfer the case from Thorrur to Mahabubabad District.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that no transfer was required in this case, as there was no illegality in the trial, and the mere fact that the Investigating Officer was examined before the other witnesses did not constitute a ground for transferring the criminal case.

Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

5. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the main contention of the petitioner is that the Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.3 before examining the other witnesses, and that such deviation itself is sufficient to transfer of the case. On going through the said contention, it is true that generally the trial Court examines the Investigating Officer, who is cited as the last witness in the charge sheet, after the other witnesses are examined. In the present case, the trial Court examined the Investigating Officer as P.W.3, and though the petitioner contends that this causes prejudice in bringing out omissions and contradictions, such a circumstance by itself does not constitute a ground for transfer of the case. If there are omissions or contradictions in the evidence of subsequent witnesses, it is always open to the petitioner to file a petition seeking summoning or recall of the Investigating Officer for the purpose of eliciting the truth, and if such a petition is filed, the trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits.

6. The other contention raised by the petitioner is that the trial Court actively participated in the cross-examination. However, no material has been placed to substantiate this allegation, and as observed by the trial Court, the petitioner was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses at length. Therefore, this allegation also cannot be a ground for transfer. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed, with an observation that if any omissions or contradictions are elicited from the witnesses examined after the examination of the Investigating Officer, it is open to the petitioner to file an appropriate recall petition for summoning the Investigating Officer for further cross-

examination on those