RANGRAO Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. ADMIT.

(2.) Heard finally by consent of both the parties.

(3.) Order impugned in the present application is passed by Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Misc. Criminal Application No. 19 of 2011. The Sessions Judge has directed that Regular Criminal Case No. 36 of 2009 (State ..vs.. Fakira & others) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahagaon be withdrawn from the said Court and be assigned to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad who is hearing Sessions Case No. 34 of 2009 (State Vs. Asifkhan). The reason cited for withdrawal of the case from the Court of Judicial Magistrate and assigning the same to the Additional Sessions Judge is that the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the incidents in both the cases had occurred in the course of same transaction and therefore, it will be just and proper if both the cases are heard by one and the same judicial officer. The learned Sessions Judge, in fact, failed to appreciate that in the first place both the incidents had not occurred during the course of same transaction. Witnesses in both the cases are different. Appreciation of evidence in one case has nothing to do with the appreciation of the evidence in other case. Apart from this, it was also necessary to be noted that by withdrawing the case from Judicial Magistrate the learned Sessions Judge has deprived the applicants of being tried in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicants cannot be treated differently from the other accused as far as procedure is concerned. They are entitled to be tried in accordance with the procedure established by law. None of the offences for which the applicant is facing charges is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. In view of this, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge suffers from serious infirmities and needs to be set aside.