IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR TR.CRL.P.No.133 of 2011 Date:16.06.2011 Between:- R.Bala Prasad .. Petitioner/Accused And The Station House Officer, II Town Police Statiion, Guntakal, Anantapur District and another. ..Respondents ORDER:- Heard Sri R.Bala Prasad, the petitioner who is appearing in person. 2. This application is filed for transfer of a criminal case i.e., C.C.No.345 of 2007 from the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal to the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapur or any other competent Court there. 3. The petitioner made an application i.e. Crl.M.P.No.62/2011 for this relief before the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapur but the said Court rejected that application by its order dated 9th May 2011. The petitioner filed this petition now in this Court seeking the same relief. The impugned order of the District Court would show that the petitioner raised two reasons/grounds for transfer of the case. The first ground is that the case was filed for the offences alleged to have been committed by him at the time when he was working as Superintendent of the Government Observation Home for Boys, Guntakal, and therefore the JFCM Court at Guntakal which is also Juvenile Court took cognizance of the case and since the said observation home is now shifted to Ananthapur and the Juvenile Court is also shifted to Ananthapur the case should be transferred to Ananthapur. The other connected reason regarding this ground is that the petitioner has since retired from service and settled down at Ananthapur and therefore the case should be transferred to Ananthapur. The District Court rejected the first ground mainly on the reason that the petitioner has not explained as to why the case is pending for more than four years and there is also no material placed before it to show that the Juvenile Court and the Government Observation Home for Boys have been shifted from Ananthapur and therefore that is not a ground to transfer the case. It did not consider the question whether the case is triable by a Juvenile Court. 4. The other reasons given by the petitioner is that his health condition is poor and therefore having settled down at Ananthapur, he cannot attend the Court at Guntakal. The District Court dealing with this aspect observed that the petitioner has not filed any medical record to show what his health condition is and how it has disabled him from going from Ananthapur to Guntakal. The petitioner says that he has filed the medical record but it has not been considered, but what medical record has been filed before the District Court is not forthcoming now. In the present petition the petitioner filed a lab report and an E.C.G. copy but it is not clear from these two documents as to what is the ill health from which he is suffering. 5. Regarding the first ground, the District Court did not discuss about the nature of the case i.e. C.C.No.345/2007 and whether it is triable by the Juvenile Court as per law. It may be noted that if the case is triable by the Juvenile Court which is stated to be established at Guntakal and if the said Court has been shifted to Ananthapur, naturally as per law the case in question has to be transferred to the Juvenile Court, Ananthapur, if there is no other Juvenile Court at Guntakal. Hence the District Court ought to have considered this aspect and found out whether the Juvenile Court has been shifted to Ananthapur and if so the case ought to be transferred to the said Juvenile Court on the ground that it is triable by the Juvenile Court. These aspects have not been discussed by the District Court in its order refusing the relief of the transfer. This itself is a ground for setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the District Court for considering this aspect and taking a decision afresh regarding the transfer request. 6. Then coming to the other ground for transfer of the case to Ananthapur, the petitioner pleaded his ill health as the ground for transfer of the case to Ananthapur and also on the ground of his settling down at Ananthapur after his retirement. The petitioner says that he is suffering from high hypertension and diabetes and he is also under treatment and he is aged about 61 years and that the Doctor advised him complete bed rest and he also stated in his petition that the official witnesses in the case are also working at Ananthapur and that would be convenient for all. The petitioner requested an opportunity for producing the medical record in support of his ill health. In the circumstances of the case having regard to the first ground which has not been answered properly and completely by the District Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be permitted to raise this ground also before the District Court by filing the necessary medical record. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of the District Court should be set aside and the petitioner’s transfer application i.e. Crl.M.P.No.62/2011 should be remitted back to the District Court for considering the above two aspects and deciding the matter afresh. 7. Accordingly the impugned order of the District Court is set aside and Crl.M.P.No.62/2011 is remitted back to the District Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law considering all the above aspects. The District Court may consider the health ground raised by the petitioner only if that is permissible for transfer having regard to the convenience of all the parties and witnesses to the case. _____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 16th June, 2011 AMD/CVRK