The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused cannot claim a vested right to have a part-heard criminal trial continued by the same judge who recorded the earlier evidence. A lawful administrative transfer of a pending sessions case can continue even after evidence has begun, provided the transfer is not arbitrary or shown to cause legally demonstrable prejudice.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the ruling on September 2, 2026, while dismissing a petition filed by Krishna Murthy @ Murthy challenging the transfer of his criminal trial from one Bengaluru Sessions Court to another.
Background of the Case
Murthy was facing trial in Sessions Case No. 824 of 2013 before the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in connection with proceedings under Section 302 of the IPC.
The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge had issued a notification dated May 20, 2026, reallocating police stations among Bengaluru's Sessions Courts. The notification took effect from June 1, 2026, and provided that cases could be retained by the existing court where the matter had reached the stage of recording the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC/Section 351 BNSS, final arguments, or had been reserved for judgment.
Murthy sought cancellation of the notification insofar as it affected his case and requested that the matter be returned to the original court. His senior counsel argued that the original judge had recorded the evidence and had therefore observed the demeanour of the witnesses. The petitioner also relied upon Sections 326, 408 and 409 of the CrPC.
The State and the High Court administration opposed the plea, arguing that an accused could not choose the court in which the trial should continue.
Court's Observation
Justice Nagaprasanna examined the actual stage of the proceedings when the reallocation came into effect. The order sheet showed that the case had been transferred while the proceedings were still at the stage of securing the presence of PW-20, the Investigating Officer, for recording his evidence. It had not reached the stage of examination of the accused, final arguments or reservation of judgment.
The Court relied on Section 365 of the BNSS, which replaces Section 326 of the CrPC. The provision allows a successor judge to proceed on evidence already recorded by the predecessor after a lawful transfer. The Court noted that the law therefore preserves continuity of a criminal proceeding despite a change in the presiding officer.
The High Court also held that Section 448 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 408 CrPC, does not prohibit transfer merely because a trial has already commenced. However, such power must be exercised carefully because transfers after substantial progress can cause inconvenience and delay.
Rejecting the argument that the original judge alone should decide the case, the Court observed:
"He does not possess a vested right to insist upon trial before a particular Judge."
The Court further found that the notification created three specific exceptions for advanced-stage cases, but Murthy's case did not fall within any of them. The Court said the petitioner was effectively seeking creation of an additional exception for every part-heard matter, which was not provided by the notification.
Decision
The High Court found that the reallocation was part of a general administrative exercise involving distribution of police stations among Sessions Courts in Bengaluru and that there was no material showing that Murthy's case had been selectively transferred for an improper purpose.
Holding that the petitioner had no vested right to insist upon trial before a particular judge, Justice Nagaprasanna dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the transfer notification.
Case Details
Case Title: Krishna Murthy @ Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 21332 of 2026 (GM-RES)
Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Decision Date: September 2, 2026
-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
