THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.112 of 2025

ORDER:

This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner to transfer SC.No.34 of 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal to the file of the Principal District Judge Court, Mahabubanagar.

2. Heard Sri P. Animi Reddy, 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, being the de facto complainant and a crucial witness in S.C.No.34 of 2023, was denied a fair opportunity to give his evidence when the trial Court forfeited his testimony on 02.09.2025 despite his genuine ill health and that of his wife, L.W.2. He further submitted that the petitioner later came to know that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused were close acquaintances, having previously worked together under the same senior advocate, which created a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner would not receive a fair and impartial trial. He contended that the principles of natural justice were being violated and that, to ensure a fair trial and avoid prejudice, the case deserved to be withdrawn from the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal, and transferred to the Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the mere fact that the Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused had earlier worked together under the same senior advocate does not constitute a valid ground for transferring the criminal case. He further submitted that there is no reasonable apprehension of bias in the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal. However, if such an apprehension exists, this Court may direct the trial Court to continue the proceedings with any other Public Prosecutor in the district. Therefore, he prayed the Court to pass appropriate orders.

5. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the sole ground urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of S.C.No.34 of 2023 is that the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused had earlier worked together under the same senior advocate, and that the Public Prosecutor did not file any petition to recall L.W.1 and L.W.2 after their evidence was closed. However, the mere fact that both the counsel had previously worked in the same office cannot, by itself, be treated as a valid or sufficient ground to transfer a criminal case from the jurisdiction of the competent Court. There is no material placed before this Court to show that the trial Judge acted with bias or that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity in accordance with law.

6. This Court is of the considered view that if the petitioner genuinely entertains any apprehension of bias or unfairness in the conduct of the trial, it is always open to him to approach the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal District, seeking appropriate directions for continuation of the trial with another Public Prosecutor in accordance with law. Except for the said grievance, no other ground has been made out warranting interference or transfer of the case.

7. Accordingly, this Transfer Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned District and Sessions Judge for appropriate relief, if so advised, in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J Date: 10.10.2025 SAI