IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Transfer Criminal Petition No.159 of 2009 Between: Choppara Satyanandam .. Petitioner AND Ghanta Ramesh and others .. Respondents Petition under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to transfer C.C. No.133 of 2007, C.C. No.37 of 2008 and C.C. No.39 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali to any other court in Guntur District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. P.S. Manjula Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor for the 4th respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Smt. P.S. Manjula Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel, who entered appearance for the learned Public Prosecutor for the 4th respondent. No notice is being ordered to respondents 1 to 3, as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The basis for the petitioner to seek transfer of the cases from the Court of competent jurisdiction is, the alleged creation of false impressions by the comments made by the 1st respondent herein about the petitioner not being granted the expected remedy and respondents 1 to 3 expecting clean acquittal in all the three cases. Respondents 1 to 3 are stated to have spread an impression that they got tremendous clout due to the influence of the 1st respondent and it is such unhealthy atmosphere that is stated to be the reason for the petitioner being persuaded to believe that injustice would be caused to him, if the cases were to be tried and disposed of by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned Sessions Judge in his order in Transfer Crl.M.P. No.1863 of 2008, dated 08-06-2009 had appropriately dealt with such apprehensions and stated that there was no material to show that the presiding officer was known to the 1st respondent or that the presiding officer was prevailed upon to pronounce the judgment in favour of the party. The learned Sessions Judge was clear that merely because the presiding officer advised the parties to enter into compromise, no presumption can be drawn that the Judge is trying to help the accused. The conclusion of the leaned Sessions Judge that the ground on which the transfer is sought for, is baseless and insufficient in law, has to be necessarily concurred with and such unfounded and uncharitable apprehensions putting a slur on the judicious determination of the cases before them by the Judges concerned, have to be rejected outright in the absence of any substantiating material. There is absolutely no reason to sustain the request of the petitioner and the petition has to fail. Hence, the transfer criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 20-08-2009 Svv