Orders reserved on 25-02-2026

Orders pronounced on 09-03-2026

Orders uploaded on 09-03-2026

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 117 TO 121 OF 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Transfer Criminal Petition Nos. 117, 118, 120 and 121 of

2025, under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023 (for short, ' the B.N.S.S.'), are filed by the petitioners-accused

Nos. 8 to 13 seeking to withdraw C.C.Nos. 2, 4, 3 and 1 of 2018

respectively from the file of the Court of learned Special Judge to try

the cases under the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of

Financial Establishments Act, 1999 – cum – Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, and transfer the same to the file of the

Court of learned Special Judge to try the cases under the Andhra

Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act,

1999 – cum – Metropolitan Sessions Judge – cum – I Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, to be tried along with

C.C.No. 36 of 2017.

2. Transfer Criminal Petition No. 119 of 2025, under Section 447

of the B.N.S.S., is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 8 to 13

seeking to withdraw C.C.No. 375 of 2022 from the file of the Court of

learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at

Machilipatnam, and transfer the same to the file of the Court of

2

learned Special Judge to try the cases under the Act – cum –

Metropolitan Sessions Judge – cum – I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, to be tried along with C.C.No. 36

of 2017.

3. Since all the transfer criminal petitions are filed by the same

petitioners and the issues involved in all the transfer criminal

petitions are also one and the same, the same are being disposed of

by way of this common order.

4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:

The evidence relied upon in this case is substantially identical

to the evidence relied upon in all other prosecutions pertaining to

Bommarillu Farms and Villas India Limited-accused No. 1,

represented by its Managing Director Rayala Raja Rao-accused No.

5. The depositors, bank witnesses, company employees, forensic

auditors and investigating officers are common to all the connected

prosecutions. The prosecution documents including bank

statements, ledger books, deposit records, property documents and

agreements are also the same.

The petitioners submit that continuation of separate trials

across multiple District Courts for the same evidence will not only

cause harassment and logistical hardship for them but will also

impose an unreasonable burden on the witnesses and the

3

investigating agency. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to

the prosecution or to any witness if the present cases are transferred

to the Court of learned Special Judge, Visakhapatnam, and on the

contrary, the consolidation of all the connected cases before learned

Special Judge, Visakhapatnam, will benefit the prosecution by

simplifying the process of examination and by ensuring that all

documentary records are available in one Court. The petitioners rely

on the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in

several judgments where overlapping evidence and common

transactions warranted transfer to avoid conflicting decisions and

undue hardship to the parties. The consolidation of trials in such

circumstances is a well recognized mechanism for promoting judicial

consistency and for safeguarding the rights of the accused as well as

the prosecution.

5. Respondent No. 1-State, represented by its Special Public

Prosecutor for CID, filed counter affidavit. The brief averments in the

counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 are as follows:

One Rayala Raja Rao-accused No. 5 established accused No.

1 company in the name and style of "Bommarillu Farms and Villas

India Limited" in the year 2011, accused No. 2 company in the name

and style of "Bommarillu Foods and Consumer Products Limited" in

the year 2011 and accused No. 3 company in the name and style of

4

"Bommarillu Constructions Private Limited" in the year 2011 in

Srinagar Colony at Hyderabad and the same were registered with

the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad. All the accused collected

deposits from general public by way of periodical installments

promising repayment at a higher rate of interest at the time of

maturity or register of a piece of land/plot in the name of the

depositor. The accused introduced various schemes to attract the

public with an intention to cheat them and also established various

branches in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Odisha States.

The company purchased lands/plots for cheaper rates from

farmers at different places with the money of the depositors. The

company used to collect deposits as advances for purchase of

plots/lands by issuing receipts in the name of accused No. 1

company and failed to register a piece of land in the name of the

customers and thereby cheated the customers. During the process,

the Directors along with their company employees-accused Nos. 8 to

14 colluded and collected crores of rupees from innocent depositors

by way of periodical installments promising payment at higher rate of

interest at the time of maturity or register a piece of land/plot in the

name of depositors and acquired Ac. 197.00 cents and 27,040

square yards of site at various places and formed layouts and also

acquired other movable properties. All the above accused

5

dishonestly induced the innocent public to make deposits in the

unscrupulous financial establishment with false promise of high rate

of interest or register piece of land in their names and collected huge

deposits. On maturity, when the depositors asked for return of their

investments or registration of lands, they wind up their business

without payment and thereby cheated the innocent depositors. The

depositors filed reports against the petitioners and other accused in

their respective police stations and the same were transferred to

Crime Investigation Department, Andhra Pradesh.

The Investigation Officer identified several movable and

immovable properties registered in the name of accused No. 1. The

accused are not in a position to return the deposits to the public who

invested their hard-earned money in the company expecting higher

rate of interest. Each case has its own distinct set of

victims/depositors, complaint, place of occurrence and amounts

involved and an independent cause of action. The assertion that as

per procedure of law, all the cases must be clubbed with the first

case is legally untenable and contrary to the scheme of the B.N.S.S.

While the broad business mode of accused No. 1 company

and allied entities is common, each depositor's grievance is rooted in

a particular branch, particular representations, particular dates of

6

deposits and defaults and is therefore a distinct offence has to be

tried by the Court within whose jurisdiction that branch functioned.

On 09-04-2019, learned Special Judge, Visakhapatnam,

discharged the accused for the charge under Section 5 of the Act

and the case was taken on file for the other offences vide C.C.No. 36

of 2017. Aggrieved by the orders passed by learned Special Judge,

Visakhapatnam, in C.C.No. 36 of 2017, the Additional Director

General of Police, CID, AP, Mangalagiri, has preferred an appeal

vide Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 2021 before this Court and the

same is pending. Transfer of a criminal case from one Court to

another is an extraordinary step to be taken sparingly only when it is

expedient for the ends of justice, typically to ensure a fair trial or

address reasonable apprehension of bias or undue influence. Mere

convenience of the accused or the existence of another connected

case in a different Court is not sufficient. Inconvenience to victims,

delay already caused and the stage of trial are relevant

considerations weighing against transfer. There is no material to

show any reasonable apprehension of bias or failure of justice before

learned Special Judge at Srikakulam or at Krishna at Machilipatnam

so as to warrant transfer. On the other hand, transfer would severely

prejudice the depositors of Srikakulam District and Krishna District

7

who would face serious hardship in attending a distant Court at

Visakhapatnam.

6. Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners-accused Nos. 8 to 13, and Sri Neelotpal Ganji, learned

Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for CID.

7. The petitioners are accused in C.C.Nos. 1 to 4 of 2018 on the

file of the Court of learned Special Judge, Srikakulam, and C.C.No.

375 of 2022 on the file of the Court of learned Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. A charge sheet has

been filed against the total 14 accused persons, out of which six

accused persons filed the instant transfer criminal petitions. The

petitioners herein have sought the relief of transfer of C.C.Nos. 1 to 4

of 2018 from the file of the Court of learned Special Judge,

Srikakulam, and C.C.No. 375 of 2022 from the file of the Court of

learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at

Machilipatnam, to the file of the Court of learned Special Judge,

Visakhapatnam, to be tried along with C.C.No. 36 of 2017.

8. It is contended by learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

for CID that four charge sheets have been filed against the

petitioners herein and other accused before learned Special Judge,

Srikakulam, one charge sheet is filed before learned Special Judge,

Vizianagaram, one charge sheet is filed before learned Principal

8

District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, and one

charge sheet is filed before learned Special Judge at

Visakhapatnam. Total seven cases are pending against the

petitioners. No transfer application has been filed in respect of the

case pending before learned Special Judge, Vizianagaram. Learned

Special Assistant Public Prosecutor would further contend that

learned Special Judge, Visakhapatnam, discharged the accused in

C.C.No. 36 of 2017 for the charge under Section 5 of the Andhra

Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act,

1999 (for short, 'the Act'), and that therefore, all the aforesaid five

cases, against which the present transfer criminal petitions are fled,

cannot be transferred to learned Special Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that the

petitioners and other accused in C.C.No. 36 of 2017 were

discharged for the charge under Section 5 of the Act by learned

Special Judge, Visakhapatnam, against which Criminal Appeal No.

235 of 2021 is filed by the State which is pending before this Court.

Therefore, it is evident that as on today, no charge of Section 5 of

the Act is pending against the petitioners before learned Special

Judge, Visakhapatnam.

9. As stated supra, the petitioners herein are seeking transfer of

C.C.Nos. 1 to 4 of 2018 from the file of the Court of learned Special

9

Judge, Srikakulam, and C.C.No. 375 of 2022 from the file of the

Court of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at

Machilipatnam, to the file of the Court of learned Special Judge,

Visakhapatnam, to be tried along with C.C.No. 36 of 2017. It is

undisputed by both sides that the petitioners and the other accused

in C.C.No. 36 of 2017 were discharged by learned Special Judge,

Visakhapatnam, for the charge under Section 5 of the Act. In all

other cases, which are pending against the petitioners before

learned Special Judge at Srikakulam and learned Principal District

and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, the petitioners

herein and the other accused were charged with the offence

punishable under Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, it is evident that

all the five cases, namely; C.C.Nos. 1 to 4 of 2018 on the file of the

Court of learned Special Judge, Srikakulam, and C.C.No. 375 of

2022 on the file of the Court of learned Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, cannot be tried together

with C.C.No. 36 of 2017 which is now pending on the file of the Court

of learned Special Judge, Visakhapatnam. The petitioners are

involved in the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act in

addition to other offences under the Indian Penal Code in all other

cases except C.C.No. 36 of 2017, wherein the petitioners were

discharged for the charge under Section 5 of the Act. Moreover, the

alleged offences in C.C.Nos. 1 to 4 of 2018 are occurred within the

10

territorial jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, Srikakulam, and the

alleged offences in C.C.No. 375 of 2022 are occurred within the

territorial jurisdiction of learned Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. Therefore, all the aforesaid cases

cannot be tried in view of the nature of the offences.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos. 8 to 13 has

placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court

rendered in Odela Satyam and another Vs. State of Telangana

and others

1

. The facts in the aforesaid case are relating to a writ

petition filed by the petitioners for clubbing of FIRs filed in various

States and also for clubbing of future FIRs to be filed against the

firm, its partners and management officials and the case for clubbing

of such FIRs is projected on the ground that multiple FIRs have been

lodged on the very same cause of action in the State of Telangana,

where the maximum number of crimes were registered, that too by

the Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad. Therefore, the facts and

circumstances in the aforesaid case law relied upon by learned

counsel for the petitioners are different to the facts and

circumstances of the instant case. In the aforesaid case law, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held at para Nos. 10 and 13 as under:

"10. We have to also notice Section 242 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, which enables offences of same kind within a year

1

2025 LIVELAW SC 958

11

to be charged together. Section 242 provides that when a person

is accused of more offences than one, of the same kind,

committed within the space of twelve months, from the first to the

last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or

not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for any number

of them not exceeding five.

13. It is made clear that if and when the trial commences, witnesses

from the prosecution, if travelling from the police station limits in

which the FIR was originally registered to the Court having

jurisdiction over the Police Station to which it has been transferred

by this order, then necessarily the Court trying the case shall

award costs to defray the expenses of travel and residence, if the

residence is necessitated for the purpose of examination of the

witnesses, which shall be paid by the accused herein through the

Court."

In the case at hand, as noticed supra, the petitioners were

discharged for the charge under Section 5 of the Act by learned

Special Judge, Visakhapatnam, in C.C.No. 36 of 2017, while the

charge under Section 5 of the Act is pending against the petitioners-

accused Nos. 8 to 13 before learned Special Judge, Srikakulam, and

learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at

Machilipatnam, in the other cases against which the present transfer

criminal petitions are filed. Therefore, all the aforesaid five cases are

not similar kind of C.C.No. 36 of 2017 which is pending before

learned Special Judge, Visakhapatnam.

11. The purpose of criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial

justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown

12

that public confidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously

undermined, any party can seek the transfer of case within the State

under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 447 of

the B.N.S.S. Every alleged offence shall ordinarily be inquired into

and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

The cause of action and the alleged offences as per the first

information reports are alleged to have arisen within the jurisdiction

of learned Special Judge, Srikakulam, and learned Principal District

and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

12. As stated supra, the petitioners herein filed the instant transfer

criminal petitions seeking transfer of C.C.Nos. 1 to 4 of 2018 from

the file of the Court of learned Special Judge, Srikakulam, and

C.C.No. 375 of 2022 from the file of the Court of learned Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, to the file of

the Court of learned Special Judge, Visakhapatnam, to be tried

along with C.C.No. 36 of 2017. In C.C.No. 2 of 2018, the petitioners

are some of the accused and 42 witnesses are cited in the charge

sheet, out of which 24 victims are shown as witnesses. The victims

and other material witnesses all are residing within the jurisdiction of

learned Special Judge, Srikakulam. In C.C.No. 3 of 2018, the

petitioners are some of the accused and 43 witnesses are cited in

the charge sheet, out of which 25 victims are shown as witnesses.

13

The victims and other material witnesses all are residing within the

jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, Srikakulam. In C.C.No. 4 of

2018, the petitioners are some of the accused and 41 witnesses are

cited in the charge sheet, out of which 25 victims are shown as

witnesses. The victims and other material witnesses all are residing

within the jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, Srikakulam. In

C.C.No. 1 of 2018, the petitioners are some of the accused and 34

witnesses are cited in the charge sheet, out of which 22 victims are

shown as witnesses. The victims and other material witnesses all

are residing within the jurisdiction of learned Special Judge,

Srikakulam. In C.C.No. 375 of 2022, the petitioners are some of the

accused and 131 witnesses are cited in the charge sheet, out of

which 87 victims are shown as witnesses. The victims and other

material witnesses all are residing within the jurisdiction of learned

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

13. The law is well settled that no universal or hard and fast rules

can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition which has always

to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case. Convenience

of the parties including the witnesses to be produced at the trial is

also a relevant consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The

convenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the

convenience of the accused alone who approached the Court on

14

misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the

purpose of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other

accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society. As

stated supra, in C.C.No. 36 of 2017 which is now pending before

learned Special Judge, Visakhapatnam, the petitioners and other

accused were discharged for the charge Section 5 of the Act. If the

plea of the petitioners is accepted and C.C.Nos. 1 to 4 of 2018 and

375 of 2022 are transferred to the Court of learned Special Judge,

Visakhapatnam, the provisions contained in the B.N.S.S. earmarking

the Courts having jurisdiction to try cases would be rendered

meaningless.

14. It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a criminal

case, the transfer of criminal case has to be accepted in exceptional

cases considering the fact that the transfer may cast unnecessarily

aspirations on the State judiciary and the prosecution agency. The

Hon'ble Apex Court in Nahar Singh Yadav and another Vs. Union

of India and others held at para No. 24 as under:

"24. Thus, although no rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to

decide whether or not power under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. should be

exercised, it is manifest from a bare reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of the

said Section and on an analysis of the decisions of this Court that an order of

transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an

interested party has expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of a

trial. This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations,

where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial. Some of

15

the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for

transfer of the trial are:-

(i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in

glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice

due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution;

(ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the

prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant;

(iii) comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the

accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the

burden to be borne by the State Exchequer in making payment of

travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses;

(iv) a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability

of holding fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and

the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and

(v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that the some

persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere

either directly or indirectly with the course of justice."

15. As noticed supra, the jurisdiction of a Court to conduct criminal

prosecution is based on the provisions of the B.N.S.S. and the

convenience for the purpose of transfer means the convenience of

the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest

of the society. The instant transfer applications are filed by six

accused. Almost all the witnesses are residing within the jurisdiction

of learned Special Judge, Srikakulam, and learned Principal District

and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, as stated supra. In

view of the above reasons, I do not find any merit and substance in

the contentions raised by the petitioners and the transfer criminal

petitions are liable to be dismissed.

16

16. Accordingly, the transfer criminal petitions are dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in

consequence. No costs.

_______________________________

JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

Date: 09.03.2026

JSK

17

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 117, 118, 119, 120 AND 121

OF 2025

Date: 09.03.2026

JSK