RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge. Anantapur, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No 33 of 1980 in Sessions Case No 73 of 1979 on the file of his Court. The petitioners are the ten accused in the Sessions Case.

(2.) The material facts leading to this revision-petition are as follows: Sessions Case No 73 of 1979 and Calendar Case No. 1 of 1980 are case and counter, The Calendar Case triable by a Magistrate was committed to the Court of Session on the ground that both the cases should be tried by the same Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge took up C.C. No. 1 of 1980 in the first instance. The Additional Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge examined three witnesses on behalf of the State and the case was adjourned. Later when Sessions Case No. 73 of 1979 was taken for trial and the same Additional Public Prosecutor appeared to conduct the prosecution being in charge of the case arising in the Court of the Assistant sessions Judge, the petitioners herein, who are the accused in the Sessions Case, filed the application Crl. M. P. No. 33 of 1980, requesting the Court to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor contending that the Additional Public Prosecutor had already appeared in support of their version in C.C. No. 1 of 1980. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the Additional Publc Prosecutor is entitled to conduct the prosecution in every case that comes up for trial before that Court, The accused persons have thereupon come up in revision to this Court contending that the order of dismissal passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge is illegal and improper.

(3.) The short question that falls for consideration in this revision is whether it is objectionable for the same Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecutions in "counter cases".