Transfer of Criminal Cases Not a Matter of Convenience: HC

Hyderabad: Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking transfer of a pending criminal appeal from the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sathupally, Khammam, to a court at either Khammam or Hyderabad. The judge ruled that the mere convenience of a petitioner did not constitute a substantial or compelling ground for transfer. The judge was dealing with the transfer criminal petition by Chava Aruna, a 58-year-old homemaker. The petitioner filed a criminal case alleging fraud and breach of trust against her by Chava Ram Mohan Rao, who fraudulently transferred the land belonging to the petitioner’s mother on his name. The trial court at Madhira acquitted the accused, and a criminal appeal is pending before the Sessions Court at Sathupally, Khammam. The petitioner in the present petition contended difficulty in attending proceedings due to age-related ailments and residence in Hyderabad; she sought transfer of appeal for her convenience. Counsel for the respondent argued that earlier, the Sessions Court had dismissed a criminal transfer petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer for her convenience and that the presence of the petitioner was not essential for appellate proceedings and that she could participate through video conferencing. The judge held that transfer of criminal cases could not be sought on trivial complaints or personal difficulties, but only on grounds affecting fair trial and justice. Accordingly, the judge dismissed the transfer petition while clarifying that the petitioner could attend proceedings virtually.

HC refuses waiver of customs deposit

The High Court cannot and therefore will not waive the statutory deposit while filing an appeal under the Customs Act. The ruling was handed out by a panel of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda of the Telangana High Court. The panel dismissed a writ petition filed by Shiva Prasad Chennuri, a labourer of Banda Lingapur, Jagtial district. The petitioner was aggrieved by the requirement of deposit of 7.5 per cent of the duty imposed on the penalty amount as a precondition for filing of an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was said to be found carrying two gold bars in his pocket weighing 233.2 gms, the value of which was Rs 15,50,780 while travelling from Dubai to Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad. The petitioner was subjected to proceedings in accordance with the Customs Act. Apart from an order of confiscation, the petitioner was imposed a fine of Rs 14 lakh. The law required the petitioner to deposit 7.5 per cent of the penalty amount in preferring an appeal. Under the earlier law, the commissioner of Customs and Central Taxes was conferred with the powers for dispensing with the deposit in a given case. However, subsequent to the substitution made in Section 129-E w.e.f. 06.08.2014, this power has not been retained in the statute. Speaking for the panel, Justice Sam Koshy said “In view of the given facts and circumstances of the case, when the statute itself does not provide for a power upon any of the authorities for dispensing with or waiving the pre-deposit as is required, be it the duty or be it the penalty or both, the writ court would find it difficult to grant waiver when the substantive law itself does not permit any such waiver to be granted. In view of this, since the law itself does not permit any waiver or dispensing with, the writ court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India would also find it difficult to pass orders granting dispensing with or waiver of pre-deposit or even reduction in the amount to be deposited.”

Sale certificate in DRT proceedings is final: HC

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, reiterated that once a sale certificate is issued and registered, the auction purchaser acquires a vested right and the sale cannot be disturbed unless fraud or illegality is proved. The panel dismissed two writ petitions filed by Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, principal borrower, challenging an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata. The case arose out of credit facilities worth Rs 40 crore availed by a jewellery manufacturing firm from Canara Bank. Following the default, the bank issued a demand notice under the Sarfaesi Act and took possession of the secured assets. An e-auction was held in March 2021, and a sale certificate was issued to the highest bidder a month later. The borrowers unsuccessfully challenged the auction before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). On review, the DRT in January 2024 set aside the auction on the grounds that the valuation report preceded the possession notice and allegedly was in violation of the rules. The DRAT reversed this decision in February 2025. The auction purchaser, who had paid the bid amount and obtained a registered sale certificate, separately filed a writ petition seeking delivery of physical possession of the property. Dismissing the borrowers’ plea, the panel held that the decision of the tribunal to set aside the auction amounted to a reassessment of evidence and exceeded the scope of review powers. The panel reiterated that review jurisdiction cannot be used as “an appeal in disguise.” The panel further observed that the borrowers failed to avail themselves of the statutory remedy of appeal under the provisions of the Sarfaesi Act within the prescribed period and had instead resorted to review proceedings.

HC fines petitioner for misusing process

The Telangana High Court, in a recently delivered verdict, voiced disapproval at “abusing the process” and directed the petitioner to pay exemplary costs of Rs 10,000. The petitioner moved the High Court, complaining of the inaction of the police on a complaint made by him on March 12. At the instance of the government, the High Court noticed that the petitioner earlier filed a similar petition and sought direction to the GHMC not to grant permission to two private respondents. He, however, withdrew the said petition with liberty to avail further remedies. This time around, he filed a similar petition by excluding the municipal authorities. “The said procedure adopted by the petitioner is clearly an abuse of the process of law and needs to be deprecated,” the judge said.