Dismissed¶41

Dr Boreddy Ramachandraiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jan 2026TRCRLP/125/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: transfer criminal petition; Section 447 BNSS; withdrawal and transfer of criminal case; judicial bias; predetermined mind; reasonable apprehension; 74 jail remarks; SPE & ACB Cases Kurnool; Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases Nellore; Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); C.C.No.85 of 2013; ACB Kadapa Range; Yennam Subhaskara complaint 31.08.2010; 22 adjournments; filing box; cross-examination facts-in-issue; Captain Amarinder Singh vs Parkash Singh Badal (2009) 6 SCC 260; Section 406 Cr.P.C.; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao; dismissal; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the Transfer Criminal Petition was dismissed and no order as to costs was made. ¶41

Dr Boreddy Ramachandraiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Corruption | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Transfer Criminal Petition was dismissed and no order as to costs was made.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether C.C.No.85 of 2013 pending before the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool should be withdrawn and transferred to the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore or any other equivalent Court. +3 more

¶21

Court's answer

Finding no merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioner, the Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

As settled law, mere suspicion by a party that it will not get justice does not justify transfer; mere presumption of possible apprehension ought not be the basis of transferring a case from one court to another.

¶33

Key takeaways

An allegation of bias resting merely on the fact of an adverse order is not sufficient to justify transfer unless substantiated by relevant material, which the Court found absent in this case.ratio¶34
The apprehension raised by the petitioner is baseless; vague and vexatious accusations without an element of truth on the working of the trial Court, unsupported by fact or circumstances, are not sufficient ground for transfer of a case.ratio¶35
The allegation that the Presiding Officer openly uttered about 74 times that she would send the petitioner to jail is baseless: the present Presiding Officer assumed charge on 20.04.2025 and, from the accused's first appearance on 29.05.2025, only 22 adjournments were completed, not 74 times as alleged.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Criminal Petition No.125 of 2025 under Section 447 of the B.N.S.S. filed by Dr Boreddy Ramachandraiah seeking withdrawal of C.C.No.85 of 2013 (offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) from the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool and its transfer to the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore or an equivalent Court - dismissed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao) on 08.01.2026. Grounds rejected: (i) alleged 74 open declarations by the trial Judge that she would send the petitioner to jail - held baseless, since the present Presiding Officer assumed charge on 20.04.2025, the accused first appeared before her on 29.05.2025 and only 22 adjournments followed; counsel conceded the assumption of charge in May 2025; (ii) refusal to receive filings and absence of a filing box - remedy lay with the Principal District Judge, whom the petitioner had not approached; (iii) alleged curbs on cross-examination - objection never raised before the trial court although prosecution evidence closed on 22.07.2025. Relying on Captain Amarinder Singh vs Parkash Singh Badal, (2009) 6 SCC 260 (transfer standard under Section 406 Cr.P.C.), the Court held that mere suspicion or an unsubstantiated apprehension of bias does not justify transfer. Dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

APHC010682102025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3397]

¶4

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶7

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 125/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dr Boreddy Ramachandraiah

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Andhra Pradesh

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶17

1.S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.125 of 2025

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The petitioner herein have filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., Act seeking to withdraw C.C.No.85 of 2013, on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool and transfer the same to any other equivalent Court or to the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore.

¶22

The case of the petitioner as per his affidavit in brief is as follows:

¶23

I. The respondent herein filed a charge sheet for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the same is registered as C.C.No.85 of 2013, on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool. The petitioner pleaded that the said case is pending for adjudication and it has now come up for advance evidence.

¶24

II. The petitioner further pleaded that the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool, has openly stated 74 times in open Court that “ I will send you to jail, you spend your remaining life in jail. The jail authorities would provide all facilities to you, there is nothing to you to do here ”. The petitioner pleaded that by now, the learned trial Judge has openly proclaimed 74 times that she would send the petitioner to jail, which indicates the predetermined mind of the Court. He further pleaded that the

¶25

petitioner filed two criminal miscellaneous petitions; the case in Crl.M.P.Nos.702 of 2025 was allowed with a condition that the petitioner has to enter into the witness box and depose and the case in Crl.M.P.No.703 of 2025 was allowed partly by permitting only D-1 to D-14 and refusing the examination on the remaining witnesses.

¶26

III. The petitioner further pleaded that as and when the petitioner files any petition or memo, the Court below is refusing to receive the same and further there is no filing box in the Court below. He further pleaded that the Court below at the time of crossexamination did not allow the petitioner to cross-examine the facts-in-issue and vehemently refused to register the answers. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner pleaded that he lost confidence over the Presiding Officer at Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool, and as such, he do not want to continue the case in C.C.No.85 of 2013, before the Court below and in case of continuation of the case, it would put the petitioner to serious loss. As such, the petitioner is constrained to file the present transfer criminal petition seeking to withdraw C.C.No.85 of 2013 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool and transfer the same to any other equivalent Court or to the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore.

¶27

Heard Sri A.Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶28

Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned Standing Counsel-cum- Special Public Prosecutor for ACB representing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

¶29

The material on record prima facie reveals that, on the complaint lodged by one Yennam Subhaskara dated 31.08.2010, a crime was registered in the year 2010, against the petitioner herein by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Kadapa Range. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid a charge-sheet before the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool, and the same was taken up on the file vide C.C.No.85 of 2013. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16 were marked on behalf of prosecution and Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-55 were marked on behalf of the A.O., before the trial Court and the prosecution evidence is completed by 22.07.2025 and C.C.No.85 of 2013, was adjourned from time to time for defence evidence/ evidence of the petitioner herein/accused.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the learned trial Judge, Kurnool, openly uttered in the Court below itself that for about 74 times by saying that she would send him to Jail, where he has to spend the remaining life and the Jail authorities would provide him all the facilities. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the leaned Standing Counsel for SPE & ACB Cases that the present Presiding Officer assumed charge on 20.04.2025, and after assuming charge as the Presiding Officer, the very first appearance of the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.85 of 2013, before the present Presiding

¶31

Officer was on 29.05.2025, and from the said date to till the date of filing the present transfer criminal petition altogether only 22 adjournments have been completed. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the present Presiding Officer assumed charge in the month of May, 2025. Therefore, there is no truth and subsistence in the aforesaid allegations raised by the petitioner. The material on record further reveals that the petitioner/accused himself conducting trial before the trial Court and the accused himself crossexamined all the witnesses. As seen from the material on record, the entire evidence of the prosecution was completed and the matter is posted for defence evidence and the petitioner herein has sought time before the Court below for about five (05) times for adducing defence evidence and the defence evidence has not been commenced by the petitioner/accused.

¶32

Another ground urged by the petitioner is that the petitioner is not allowed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses properly. As stated supra, the entire evidence of prosecution was completed by 22.07.2025 and till the date of filing of the present transfer criminal petition, the petitioner has not raised this type of objection before the Court below.

¶33

The law is well settled that “ mere suspicion by the party that he will not get justice would not justify the transfer. Mere presumption of possible apprehension should not and ought not be the basis of transfer of any case from one court to another. Where, a transfer is sought by making allegation regarding integrity in respect of the Presiding Officer of the Court, this Court has to be very careful before passing any order of transfer. The allegation of

¶34

bias by mere fact of an adverse order is not sufficient to justify transfer, unless it is also substantiated by relevant material, which is not the case in hand.”

¶35

In a case of Captain Amarinder Singh vs Parkash Singh Badal & Ors¹ , while dealing with an application for a transfer petition preferred under Section 406 of Cr.P.C., a full Bench of the Apex Court has opined that “ for transfer of a criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice will not be done”. It has also been observed there in that “ mere an allegation that there is an apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case alone does not suffice. It is required on the part of the Court to see that the apprehension alleged is reasonable or not, for the apprehension must not only be present, but must appear to the Court to be reasonable .” In the case at hand, the apprehension raised by the petitioner is baseless. Vague and vexatious accusations without an element of truth on the working of the trial Court, which are not supported either by fact or by circumstances will not “ Ipso facto”, be sufficient ground for transfer of a case.

¶36

In the case at hand, the allegations leveled by the petitioner against the Presiding Officer that the Presiding Officer of the Court openly uttered in the Court below itself for about 74 times by saying that “ she would him to Jail” is baseless. The material available on record reveals that the present Presiding Officer assumed charge on 20.04.2025. After assuming the charge, the very first appearance of the accused was on 29.05.2025, before the present

¶37

1 (2009)6 SCC 260

¶38

Presiding Officer and from that date to till the date of filing of the present transfer criminal petition altogether only 22 adjournments have been completed, but not 74 times as alleged by the petitioner

¶39

Another ground urged by the petitioner is that there is no „filing box‟ in the Court of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool, in such a case, it is open to the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the Principal District Judge of the concerned district. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that he has brought to the notice of the concerned Principal District Judge about not maintaining of the filing box by the office of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, at Kurnool.

¶40

In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioner and as such, the present Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶41

With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

_______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶44

Date: 08.01.2026 SRT

Dr Boreddy Ramachandraiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Boreddy Ramachandraiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palla Lanaya Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Alamuri Sree Ramya, Vs S. Rajesh Kumar

Jagileti Aruna Vs Malesetty Praveen Kumar

Kona Bhavana Vs Polepalli Medhara Amruth

Smt. Yogitila @ Yagatala @ Chatty Haritha Nagaveni Vs Sri.Chatty @ C.Girish Kumar

Nimmagadda Venkateswarlu Vs Gadamsetty Nagarjuna