CIVIL APPEAL 11 of 2022 on 28 February 1986

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, requesting to withdraw C.C.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Rajamahendravaram, and transfer the same to the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

2. Heard Sri T.D.Pani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB-cum-Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

3. The background facts, in brief, are as follows:

The Inspector of Police, ACB, Eluru Range, Eluru, West Godavari District, registered a case in Crime No.11/RCA-EWG/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, on the ground that the petitioner herein acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The search conducted on the house of accused revealed that the accused officer is in possession of pecuniary resources and properties to an extent of Rs.3,22,71,239/- and his income from the known source during the check period, that is, from 28.02.1986 to 26.10.2009, is arrived at Rs.77,36,431/-. The disproportionate assets possessed by the accused officer, during the check period, is Rs.3,28,96,386/- for which he was unable to account for satisfactorily. The accused officer was arrested on 27.10.2009 and later released on bail. Initially, the case was taken on file by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Vijayawada, vide C.C.No.12 of 2013. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Special Court at Rajamahendravaram in the year 2018 and renumbered as C.C.No.2 of 2019. In the aforesaid background, the present petition has been filed requesting to withdraw C.C.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Rajamahendravaram, and transfer the same to the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Vijayawada, Krishna District, mainly on the following grounds:

(i) Since the date of transfer of C.C.No.12 of 2013 from the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Vijayawada, to the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram, till today, there is no much progress in the case; file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Vijayawada, to the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram, till today, there is no much progress in the case;

(ii) The petitioner has retired from service and settled at Hyderabad; Hyderabad;

(iii) The distance from Hyderabad to Rajamahendravaram is 450 Kms. Whenever the case is posted, he has to travel by spending about Rs.5,000/- for boarding and lodging towards each and every adjournment; 450 Kms. Whenever the case is posted, he has to travel by spending about Rs.5,000/- for boarding and lodging towards each and every adjournment;

(iv) His health is not permitting him to travel such long distance very often; distance very often;

(v) Most of the witnesses are aged and retired and all of them are from Hyderabad and it is very difficult for him to spend expenditure on them for each and every adjournment. are from Hyderabad and it is very difficult for him to spend expenditure on them for each and every adjournment.

4. It is the main contention of the petitioner that after transfer of the case to the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram, he is unable to travel for long distances and has

to spend huge amount for every adjournment as he has to stay there for two days for every adjournment, and further that most of the witnesses, as many as 64 witnesses out of 96 witnesses have to come from Hyderabad, four witnesses are residents of Vijayawada, four other witnesses are residents of Eluru and eighteen witnesses are residents of West Godavari, three witnesses are from East Godavari District, besides one witness each from Prakasam, Kurnool and Srikakulam Districts. Therefore, it is convenient for majority of the witnesses to attend before the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, rather than the Court at Rajamahendravaram.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner settled at Hyderabad after his retirement since he constructed his house in the year 1989 itself and it is becoming difficult for him to manage to attend the Court situated at Rajamahendravaram. It is further submitted that after transfer of the case from Vijayawada to Rajamahendravaram, there has been no progress at all as explained in the petition and it is also causing hardship to meet the recurring expenses.

6. Though counter has not been filed by the respondent in spite of taking time for more than three months, the petition was opposed on the ground that the reasons stated by the petitioner for seeking transfer of the case are very much common to many other accused in other cases and if these reasons are accepted, many such petitions would be filed and that would lead to defeat the purpose of establishing a Court at Rajamahendravaram and the Court at Vijayawada would be overburdened. It is further stated that since conveyance is available from Hyderabad to Rajamahendravaram, there is no need to stay for two days and the expenditure stated by the petitioner is of high value than what the real expenditure would be. It is also stated that the witnesses are bound to attend wherever the Court is and it is only once they would attend the Court and thus, in view of availability of conveyance, there is no need to transfer the case.

7. There is no dispute as to the age of the petitioner and the fact that he had retired from service and settled at Hyderabad. It is also not the case of the respondent that he has chosen that place to get any kind of advantage in this matter. Of course, there is conveyance facility to reach from Hyderabad to Rajamahendravaram by travelling overnight and there is no need to spend two days time. However, the distance between Hyderabad and Vijayawada is only half of the distance between Hyderabad and Rajahmundry and the conveyance facilities available between Hyderabad and Vijayawada are very high. Apart from that the number of witnesses who have to travel from Hyderabad is very high. In addition to that some witnesses have to come from Kurnool and Prakasam Districts which are close to Vijayawada. The witnesses who are residents of Eluru also need to travel the same distance either to Vijayawada or to Rajamahendravaram. It is only a single digit number of witnesses to travel short distance to attend the Court at Rajamahendravaram. It cannot be said that the evidence of witnesses can be completed in a single sitting. Keeping all these facts in view, there is no reason to refuse the request of the petitioner. At the same time, the apprehension of the respondent that similar requests may also follow cannot be ignored. So far, no such application filed is brought to the

notice of this Court. Each case is to be decided in the light of its own facts and circumstances. The relief granted in this petition cannot become a precedent to other cases. Moreover, there is no dispute about the fact that there has been no progress in the case after its transfer from the Court at Vijayawada to the Court at Rajamahendravaram. Therefore, even if the case is transferred, there is no likelihood of delay in disposal of the case. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the prayer of the petitioner.

8. In the result, the Transfer Criminal Petition is allowed and C.C.No.2 of 2019 pending on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, is withdrawn from its file, and the same is transferred to the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Vijayawada, Krishna District. On such transfer, if a new case number is to be assigned, the learned Special Judge shall note the old case number also on the docket and consider the case as an old case as was originally filed.

No costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________

B. S. BHANUMATHI, J