The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the territorial jurisdiction of courts in criminal matters is not subordinate to the convenience of the accused. In a significant ruling, the Court dismissed transfer petitions seeking to consolidate multiple cases against the same accused across different districts, emphasizing that the place of offence, not the accused’s residence or logistical ease, determines the proper forum for trial.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, directors and associated entities of Bommarillu Farms and Villas India Ltd., are accused in multiple criminal cases filed across Andhra Pradesh for allegedly cheating depositors through fraudulent financial schemes. The accused collected deposits from the public under false promises of high returns or land registration, then defaulted on obligations. Separate charge sheets were filed in Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram, and Machilipatnam, each relating to distinct branches, depositors, and transactions.
Procedural History
- 2017: C.C. No. 36 of 2017 filed before Special Judge, Visakhapatnam, under the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999.
- 2018: Three additional charge sheets (C.C. Nos. 1 - 3 of 2018) filed before Special Judge, Srikakulam, for similar offences.
- 2019: Special Judge, Visakhapatnam, discharged the accused under Section 5 of the Act in C.C. No. 36 of 2017; appeal pending before the High Court.
- 2026: Petitioners filed Transfer Criminal Petitions Nos. 5 - 7 of 2026 under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.), seeking transfer of Srikakulam cases to Visakhapatnam for joint trial.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought consolidation of all pending cases against them in Visakhapatnam, citing convenience of travel from Hyderabad, duplication of evidence, and risk of conflicting judgments. They relied on Odela Satyam v. State of Telangana to argue for clubbing of cases arising from a common scheme.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 447 of the B.N.S.S. permits transfer of criminal cases between courts within the same state merely to accommodate the convenience of the accused, when the alleged offences occurred in distinct jurisdictions and the target court lacks jurisdiction over the specific charges pending.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners contended that:
- All cases arose from a single business model and common set of accused.
- Consolidation would prevent inconsistent verdicts and reduce procedural burden.
- Witnesses and victims in Srikakulam cases were not significantly more numerous than those in Visakhapatnam.
- Odela Satyam supported clubbing of multiple FIRs arising from the same transaction.
- Travel from Hyderabad to Srikakulam was logistically difficult due to lack of direct rail connectivity.
For the Respondent
The State countered that:
- Each case involved distinct victims, deposit dates, locations, and amounts, constituting separate offences.
- The accused had been discharged under Section 5 of the Act in Visakhapatnam, rendering C.C. No. 36 of 2017 legally incompatible for joint trial with the Srikakulam cases, where Section 5 charges remain active.
- Transfer would violate the territorial jurisdiction principles under Section 177 of the B.N.S.S., which mandates trial where the offence was committed.
- Transferring cases would impose severe hardship on Srikakulam-based victims and witnesses, many of whom are economically vulnerable.
- Transfer petitions must be granted only in exceptional circumstances to prevent forum shopping.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of jurisdictional principles under the B.N.S.S. and precedent. It emphasized that Section 177 of the B.N.S.S. establishes the foundational rule: every offence shall be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. This is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive safeguard against arbitrary prosecution.
"The jurisdiction of a Court to conduct criminal prosecution is based on the provisions of the B.N.S.S. and the convenience for the purpose of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society."
The Court distinguished Odela Satyam, noting that case involved inter-state transfers and overlapping charges under the same statute. Here, the Visakhapatnam case had already been discharged on the key charge (Section 5 of the Act), making joint trial legally impossible. The Court further held that convenience of the accused alone cannot override the rights of victims and the integrity of jurisdictional boundaries.
It noted that 22 - 25 victims in each Srikakulam case were residents within that jurisdiction, and transferring the cases would force them to travel over 400 km to Visakhapatnam. The Court invoked Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India to underscore that transfer is an extraordinary remedy, reserved for cases involving bias, witness intimidation, or systemic failure - not logistical inconvenience.
The Court also rejected the argument that duplicate documentation or witness testimony justified transfer, stating that procedural efficiency cannot override substantive jurisdictional mandates.
The Verdict
The petitioners lost. The Court held that territorial jurisdiction under Section 177 of the B.N.S.S. is non-negotiable and cannot be circumvented for the accused’s convenience. The transfer petitions were dismissed because the target court lacked jurisdiction over the pending charges, and no exceptional circumstances warranted deviation from the statutory framework.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdiction Is Not Subject to Convenience
- Practitioners must resist arguments that seek to shift trials based on accused’s residence or travel difficulty.
- Courts will prioritize the location of the offence and the residence of victims over the accused’s logistical preferences.
- Transfer petitions under Section 447 B.N.S.S. require concrete evidence of bias or systemic failure - not mere hardship.
Discharge on One Charge Bars Consolidation
- If an accused is discharged on a specific charge in one case (e.g., Section 5 of the Act), that case cannot be merged with others where the same charge remains active.
- Joint trial requires identical or substantially overlapping charges; partial overlap is insufficient.
- Always verify the exact charges pending in each case before filing a transfer petition.
Witness Convenience Favors Prosecution
- The Court explicitly defined "convenience" as inclusive of victims, prosecution, and witnesses - not just the accused.
- In financial fraud cases, victims are often elderly or low-income; forcing them to travel long distances undermines access to justice.
- Petitioners must now demonstrate that transfer would serve the interests of all stakeholders, not just the accused.
