Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Agri Gold Farm Estates India ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 August, 2021
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 30 of 2020 and
31 of 2020, 48 of 2019, 50 of 2019, 52 of 2019, 53 of 2019,
79 of 2019, 80 of 2019, 92 of 2019 and 93 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:-
Since the subject matter in all the transfer criminal
petitions is one and the same, this Court deems it appropriate to
dispose of the same by way of a common order.
2. Tr.Crl.P.No.30 of 2020 is filed under Section 407 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") to withdraw
C.C.No.3 of 2020 on the file of Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Machilipatnam to the Special Court-cum-Principal
District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru to conduct
trial along with C.C.No.10 of 2018.
3. Tr.Crl.P.No.31 of 2020 is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C
to withdraw C.C.No.4 of 2020 on the file of Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam to the Special Court-cum-
Principal District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru
to conduct trial along with C.C.No.10 of 2018.
4. Tr.Crl.P.No.48 of 2019 is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C
to withdraw C.C.No.5 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judge to
try the Cases under the A.P. Protection of Depositors of
Financial Establishments Act-cum-Principal District & Sessions
Judge, Kadapa to the Special Court-cum-Principal District and
Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru to be tried along with
C.C.No.10 of 2018.
2
5. Tr.Crl.P.No.50 of 2019 is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C
to withdraw C.C.No.3 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge to
try the Cases under the A.P. Protection of Depositors of
Financial Establishments Act-cum-Principal District & Sessions
Judge, Ongole to the Special Court-cum-Principal District and
Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru to be tried along with
C.C.No.10 of 2018.
6. Tr.Crl.P.No.52 of 2019 is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C
to withdraw C.C.No.5 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge to
try the Cases under the A.P. Protection of Depositors of
Financial Establishments Act-cum-Principal District & Sessions
Judge, Ongole to the Special Court-cum-Principal District and
Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru to be tried along with
C.C.No.10 of 2018.
7. Tr.Crl.P.No.53 of 2019 is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C
to withdraw C.C.No.4 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge to
try the Cases under the A.P. Protection of Depositors of
Financial Establishments Act-cum-Principal District & Sessions
Judge, Ongole to the Special Court-cum-Principal District and
Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru to be tried along with
C.C.No.10 of 2018.
8. Tr.Crl.P.No.79 of 2019 is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C
to withdraw C.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Nellore to the Special Court-cum-Principal
3
District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru to be tried
along with C.C.No.10 of 2018.
9. Tr.Crl.P.No.80 of 2019 is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C
to withdraw C.C.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Chittoor and transfer the same to the
Special Court-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, West
Godavari at Eluru to be tried along with C.C.No.10 of 2018.
10. Tr.Crl.P.No.92 of 2019 is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C
to withdraw C.C.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool and transfer the same to
the Special Court-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge,
West Godavari at Eluru to be tried along with C.C.No.10 of
2018.
11. Tr.Crl.P.No.93 of 2019 is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C
to withdraw C.C.No.21 of 2019 on the file of the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool and transfer the same to
the Special Court-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge,
West Godavari at Eluru to be tried along with C.C.No.10 of
2018.
12. The petitioners herein are the accused in above cases for
the offence punishable under Sections 420, 403, 406, 477A r/w
120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and
Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of
Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short "Act 1999").
4
13. The brief facts of case are that the petitioners are arrayed
as accused in various cases registered in the State of Telangana
and the State of Andhra Pradesh. The allegation of the
prosecution is that the accused company is collecting deposits
from the customers for plots, but the company neither delivered
the plots nor returned the money paid by the customers. There
are total 18 cases registered (15 cases in the State of Andhra
Pradesh and 3 cases in the State of Telangana). Out of these
cases, F.I.R No.171 of 2013 was the first case registered in
Kanagal Police Station, Nalgonda District. However in F.I.R
No.3 of 2015 on the file of Pedapadu Police Station, West
Godavari District, the C.I.D department has passed the
attachment orders in respect of properties of Agri Gold Group of
Companies by issuing various G.Os. The petitioners were
arrested in connection with all 18 cases and they were released
on bail by the respective Courts.
In the State of Andhra Pradesh, there are totally 15 cases
before various Courts, which are:
S. C.C.No. / SC
Court Police Station F.I.R No.
No. No / CF No.
Principal District &
Madanapalli II
1 Sessions Judge at 6 of 2015 CC 3 of 2018
Town PS
Chittoor
Principal District &
Chinna Chowk SC SPL 5 of
2 Sessions Judge at 31 of 2015
PS 2018
Kadapa
Principal District &
II Town PS,
3 Sessions Judge at 378 of 2014 CC 1 of 2019
Nellore
Nellore
Principal District &
CC 13 of
4 Sessions Judge at Nidadavole PS 195 of 2016
2018
Eluru
Principal District &
CC 10 of
5 Sessions Judge at Pedapadu PS 3 of 2015
2018
Eluru
Principal District &
6 Sessions Judge at Eluru II Town PS 100 of 2017 CC 2 of 2019
Eluru
5
Principal District &
Kurnool II Town CC 20 of
7 Sessions Judge at 189 of 2015
PS 2019
Kurnool
Principal District &
Nandyala I Town CC 21 of
8 Sessions Judge at 4 of 2015
PS 2019
Kurnool
Principal District &
9 Sessions Judge at Cumbum PS 3 of 2015 CC 4 of 2019
Ongole
Principal District &
10 Sessions Judge at Kandukuru PS 97 of 2015 CC 3 of 2019
Ongole
Principal District &
11 Sessions Judge at Ongole I Town PS 9 of 2015 CC 5 of 2019
Ongole
I Additional District &
Sessions Judge, FAC
12 Sessions Judge, Chilakalapudi PS 2 of 2015 CC 4 of 2020
Krishna at
Machiliaptnam
I Additional District &
Sessions Judge, FAC
13 Sessions Judge, Jaggaiahpeta PS 248 of 2014 CC 3 of 2020
Krishna at
Machiliaptnam
Special Court-cum-
Principal District and
14 Pedakakani PS 170 of 2018 -DO-
Sessions Judge,
Guntur
Court of Sessions Rajahmundry II
15 7 of 2015 -DO-
Judge, Rajahmundry Town PS
It is stated that the main case in the entire 15 cases, is
the case arising out of F.I.R No.3 of 2015 on the file of Pedapadu
Police Station, West Godavari District and the State of Andhra
Pradesh has also attached all the properties by way of issuing
various Government Orders. As per provisions of the Act 1999,
the Additional Director General of C.I.D was nominated as the
competent authority for the purpose of issuing attachment
orders by issuing G.Os., as per the scheme of the Act, the
properties which were attached shall be confiscated to the
Government for the purpose of repayment to the victims.
Hence, the Special Court has initiated proceedings of
confiscation and in that process, notices were issued to the
petitioners and the provisional attachment orders in
6
Crl.M.P.No.998 of 2015 dated 23.08.2015 were confirmed by
making the attachment absolute. Now the next course of action
is to decide the main case and if the Court finds the accused
guilty, the entire properties which were attached have to be
confiscated to the State. Hence, the proceedings pending before
the other Courts also have to be transferred to the Special
Court-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Eluru since
the adjudication process is pending before the said Court with
regard to properties concerned. However, in some cases since
the investigation was not completed and charge sheets were not
filed, if the trial is commenced in other cases, where charges
were filed, it will cause prejudice to the petitioners.
It is stated that in the present cases, since the allegations
are one and the same and the prosecuting agency is also one
and the same, it is convenient for both the parties, if the cases
are transferred to the Special Court at Eluru for the purpose of
joint trial. Further, as per Section 6 (3) of Act 1999, all the
cases tried by other Courts for the same offences shall be
transferred to the Special Court. Since the Special Court at
Eluru is dealing with attachment of properties, all the cases
from other Courts shall be transferred to Special Court at Eluru.
14. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for
Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Sri T.M.K.Chaitanya, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special
Public Prosecutor for C.I.D appearing on behalf of 1st
respondent.
15. Learned senior counsel submits that out of total 15 cases,
charge sheets are filed in 13 cases and out of 13 cases, the first
case i.e. F.I.R No.3 of 2015 on the file of Pedapadu Police
Station, West Godavari District and as per the procedure
contemplated under the Act 1999, the CID has filed petitions
before the Special Court, Eluru seeking confirmation of order of
attachment and by order dated 23.09.2015, the Special Court
allowed the petitions pertaining to properties of the company.
He submits that other petitions filed for confirmation of order of
attachment before the Special Court are pending for
adjudicating. He submits that as per Section 407 of Cr.P.C,
convenience of the parties or witnesses or is expedient for the
ends of justice, is one of the grounds for transfer of cases by the
High Court. In this case, voluminous documents are filed by
both prosecution and accused and it will be convenient for both
parties, if the cases are decided by the same Court.
16. Learned senior counsel drawn the attention of this Court
to Section 219 of Cr.P.C and submits that if a person is accused
of more offences than one of the same kind committed within
the space of twelve months, it needs to be tried at one trial. As
per Section 220 of Cr.P.C of series of offences in the same
transaction are committed by accused, they needs to be tried at
one trial. He submits that the allegations against the accused
in all the cases are similar and only the customers at different
places have lodged different F.I.Rs. He submits that as per
Sections 219 and 220 of Cr.P.C all the cases have to be tried by
the single Court. He submits that in all the 15 cases, the
accused are not denying any of the documents filed by the
customers, hence the presence of the customers is not
necessary for marking those documents. As per Section 294 of
Cr.P.C, if the genuineness of the document is not disputed, the
same can be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other
proceedings without proof of signature of the person to whom it
purports to be signed.
17. Learned senior counsel submits that as per Section 6 (4)
of Act 1999, the Special Court has to distribute among the
depositors of the money realized from out of the property
attached. In the present case, properties belonging to the
accused are attached by CID and the same was confirmed by
the Special Court at Eluru and for distributing the sale proceeds
the parties including the customers have to approach the
Special Court at Eluru. Learned senior counsel concluded his
arguments submitting that if all the cases are transferred to the
Special Court at Eluru, it would be convenient for both the
prosecution and accused and no prejudice/inconvenience would
be caused to the defacto complainant, as the company is not
disputing any of the documents. In support of his contention, he
relied on the judgment passed by the composite High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Mandru Salmon Raju Vs. State of A.P. in
Tr.Crl.P.No.119 of 2020 and batch dated 06.08.2018.
18. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for CID submits that
while transferring the cases, the Court has to take into
consideration not only the convenience of the accused, but also
the relative convenience of both parties including witnesses. in
this case, most of the witnesses are aged more than 60 years
and it would be very difficult for them to travel all the way to
Eluru, if the cases are transferred to the Special Court, Eluru.
He submits that presence of petitioners was not required on all
dates of hearing and their advocate may be present and
represent the case and other avenues are contemplated under
Cr.P.C to facilitate the petitioners in attending the trial and
avoid inconvenience. Relying on Sections 205 and 281 of Cr.P.C
and Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice, he submits that no
prejudice would be caused to the accused. He submits that the
only intention of petitioners is to drag on the proceedings of the
Court and in view of gravity of offence committed by the
accused, they are not entitled for reliefs as prayed for.
19. Learned Standing Counsel for CID relied on the following
judgment -
a) Maneka Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Miss Rani Jethmalani1.
b) Binji Manohari Vs. Kethinedi Venkata Subbarao2.
c) Alladi Buchi Raju Vs. Uppu Sunitha3.
He further submits that the defacto complainant is
dominus litus and is entitled to choose his forum and while
transferring the case, relative convenience of both parties have
to be considered and it is not convenient for the defacto
AIR 1979 SC 468
Tr.C.M.P.No.100 of 2013 dated 31.07.2013 of High Court of A.P.
Tr.C.M.P.No.360 of 2018 dated 19.11.2020 of High Court of A.P.
complainant to come to Eluru in other cases. Hence, the
transfer criminal petitions may be dismissed.
20. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material on record.
21. It is pertinent to note that as per Section 407 of Cr.P.C,
convenience of the parties or witnesses or is expedient for the
ends of justice, is one of the grounds for transfer of cases by the
High Court. In the case on hand, the petitioners herein are
accused in all the 15 cases, properties of the petitioners'
company were attached and the said attachment order was
confirmed by the Special Court, Eluru. Admittedly there is
voluminous record filed on behalf of accused as well as
prosecution. As per Section 6 (4) of Act 1999 the properties
have to be distributed by the Special Court, Eluru in case the
offences are proved. Even for marking the documents the
presence of defacto complainant is not necessary, as the
petitioners are not disputing any of the documents filed by the
customers. The allegations in all the cases are similar and if the
cases are tried by different Court, the possibility of rendering
conflicting judgments cannot be overruled. In the judgment
relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Mandru
Salmon Raju (supra), where several complaints have been filed
against the Company and this Court allowed the transfer
criminal petition by transferring the cases to a designated Court
at Guntur. The case on hand is also identical to the set of facts
in the said judgment and to meet the ends of justice, this Court
is of the considered opinion that no prejudice would be caused
either to prosecution or to defacto complainants, if these cases
are transferred to the Special Court at Eluru. Moreover, it
would be in the interests of parties.
22. Accordingly, all the transfer criminal petitions are allowed.
C.C.No.3 of 2020 on the file of Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Machilipatnam; C.C.No.4 of 2020 on the file of Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam; C.C.No.5 of 2018
on the file of the Special Judge to try the Cases under the A.P.
Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act-cum-
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa; C.C.No.3 of 2019
on the file of the Special Judge to try the Cases under the A.P.
Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act-cum-
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ongole; C.C.No.5 of 2019
on the file of the Special Judge to try the Cases under the A.P.
Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act-cum-
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ongole; C.C.No.4 of 2019
on the file of the Special Judge to try the Cases under the A.P.
Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act-cum-
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ongole; C.C.No.1 of 2019
on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nellore;
C.C.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Chittoor; C.C.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool and C.C.No.21 of
2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Kurnool are withdrawn and the same are transferred to the
Special Court-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, West
Godavari at Eluru for disposal along with C.C.No.10 of 2018.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
18th August, 2021
PVD
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 30 of 2020 and
31 of 2020, 48 of 2019, 50 of 2019, 52 of 2019, 53 of 2019,
79 of 2019, 80 of 2019, 92 of 2019 and 93 of 2019
18th August, 2021
PVD
