IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8667/2018 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BALAKRISHNA BHAT S/O SHAM BHAT AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
2. SRI. VARADESH S/O BALAKRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/O C/O UMESH RAO BEHIND TALUK PANCHAYATH OFFICE SULIA KASABAGRAMA SULIA TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 574 239.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B. RAJA SUBRAHMANYA BHAT., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIKERI TOWN POLICE MADIKERE, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RACHAIAH., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 407 CR.P.C PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF THE SPL.CASE NO.9/2017 (S.C.40/2016) PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADIKERI TO THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION FILED U/S 407 OF CR.PC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. B.Raja Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is seeking for transfer of Spl.Case No.9/2017 (S.C.No.40/2016) pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Madikeri to the Court of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru.
3. It is the contention of Sri. Raja Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that allegations made against petitioners/accused by the prosecution, which has now resulted in filing of charge sheet in Spl.Case No.9/2017, are similar to the allegations made against very same petitioners in Spl.Case No.29/2016 (C.C.No.1575/2015) and as such, proceedings where the trial is yet to commence in Spl. Case No.9/2017 pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Madikeri, be transferred to Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, since allegations made in both the cases against the petitioners are similar, identical and in order to avoid any unusual difficulties, which are likely to arise, it would be necessary to transfer the proceedings as sought for.
4. Per contra, Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State would oppose the prayer contending that witnesses are different in both cases and the witnesses cited in Spl. Case No.9/2017 will not be able to travel all the way from Madikeri to Mangaluru and as such he prays for dismissal of the criminal petition.
5. As could be seen from the material available on record, prosecution witnesses (78 in number) in Spl. Case No.9/2017 are said to have deposited certain amounts with the petitioners under different gold schemes and the case of prosecution is that petitioners having received amounts from various persons, had deceived the informants on the promise of repayment, which they have not done. Most of the witnesses who have been cited by the prosecution are ladies who are residing at Madikeri District and nearby villages/places of Madikeri district and they are said to have deposited various amounts ranging from `250/- onwards and for the said purpose, if they are made to travel all the way from Madikeri to Mangaluru, it would be onerous and difficult for them. When cause of action being distinct and separate, said proceedings cannot be transferred to Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, since these Courts have been constituted under Section 10 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004, as Special Courts. As such, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a case to transfer Spl. Case No.9/2017 from Madikeri to Mangaluru. Hence, criminal petition is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DR