HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1018 of 2014
ORDER :
The Criminal Revision case is filed to set aside the order dated 18.03.2014 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Cr.M.P.No.720 of 2013 in C.C.No.33 of 2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Boath.
The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant of Crime No.03 of 2013 of P.S. Ichoda covered by C.C.No.33 of 2013. There are nine accused therein. There is another case covered by S.C.No.127 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 427 r/w. Section 34 IPC, of same police station, in Crime No.02 of 2013. It is to say very clearly that Crime Nos.2 & 3 of 2013 are outcome of the incident of same day between two groups. It appears that in S.C.No.127 of 2013 trial is almost at the fag end after Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination and defence evidence, if not matter posted for arguments as on date. So far as C.C.No.33 of 2013 is concerned, the trial is yet to commence and charges are framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C. It is during pendency of trial in S.C.No.127 of 2013, the accused persons therein filed an application in Cr.M.P.No.720 of 2013 with a request to transfer C.C.No.33 of 2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Boath, to the Court of Sessions, where S.C.No.127 of 2013 is pending i.e., on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad. It is pursuant to the impugned order of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Adilabad dated 18.03.2014, the C.C.No.33 of 2013 was transferred to the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad. No doubt the operative portion reads that for being tried along with S.C.No.127 of 2013 pending on its file and to dispose of both the cases at a time by directing the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Boath, to transmit the record in C.C.No.33 of 2013 to the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad.
The defacto complainant in C.C.No.33 of 2013 impugned the said order of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in transferring C.C.No.33 of 2013 to the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad, with observation to try along with the sessions case and to dispose of both the cases at a time.
Heard both sides. Perused the material on record. Now, the point for consideration is
1. Whether the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Adilablad is unsustainable and requires interference by this Court while sitting in revision and if so, with what observation?
2. To what result ?
POINT NO.1 :
The factual matrix referred in the transfer petition now impugned (detailed supra) speak that a perusal of charge sheets of both the cases covered by two crimes supra, discloses the date and time of offence in Crime No.02 of 2013 at 10.30 p.m., on 31.12.2012 and in Crime No.03 of 2013 on 01.01.2013 at 12.30 a.m. (by comparison in juxta position) there is only two hours gap, as incident for saying intervening night 31.01.2013, it is so stated. It is also the observation that the charge sheet filed in Crime No.02 of 2013 discloses that during course of investigation through the evidence of witnesses the accused persons 1 to 9 of C.C.No.33 of 2013 (Crime No.03/2013) went to the house of the defacto complainant at about 11.30 p.m and 12.30 mid night (intervening night) and the scene of offence is same infront of the house of the complainant A.K.Reddy. K.V.S.Reddy is first accused, L.W.1 is A.T. Reddy, Lw.2 is K.R.C.Reddy, L.W.3 is K.P. Reddy, L.W.4 is another K.P. Reddy, Lw.6 is K.N.Reddy, Lw.7 is another K.R.Reddy and they are the accused persons 2 to 7 in Crime No.02 of 2013. It is to say some of the accused in one crime are the prosecution witnesses in another crime. It is there from the learned Sessions Judge, concluded that both cases must be disposed of at a time to avoid conflicting of judgments. In fact the expression of the Apex Court in State
[1]
of M.P V Mishrilal (dead) and others , it is clear, though outcome of the private complaint case and police case under Section 210 Cr.P.C., is in saying in such case as laid down with guidelines by the earlier settled
[2]
expression of the Apex Court in Nathilal V State of U.P., both cases must be tried simultaneously for deciding at a time. Clubbing of cases is uncommon to criminal law but for which clubbing arises from where the original crime of accused in abscondence after apprehending inspite of continuing with same evidence, two cases to club together as original crime is common.
Having regard to the above, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, and requires no interference for this Court while sitting in revision. Though the revision is maintainable in negating the contentions of the respondents herein, of the transfer proceedings, as it is interlocutory in nature, it effects the substantial rights of the parties.
Accordingly point no.1 is answered.
POINT NO.2 :
IN THE RESULT, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
The miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this Criminal Revision case shall stand dismissed.
Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J, 25th July, 2014 Rds
[1] AIR 2003 SC 4089
[2] 1990 (Suppl) SCC 145