PASUPULATI NANJAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Additional Sessions Judge of Cuddapah received C. A. No. 71 of 1960 filed i.e., presented by an appellant (P. Nanjappa) against his conviction and sentence by Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Cuddapah and disposed it of by setting aside the conviction and sentence and remanding the case for retrial. The same appellant filed Cri. R. C. 372 of 1960 against that judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) The Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam heard C. A. No. 269 of 1959 against conviction and sentence by Judicial II Class Magistrate, Sompeta. A preliminary objection was raised by Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I, Sriiakulam, that an Additional Sessions Judge was not competent to receive an appeal and that, therefore, the appeal (which had been received and admitted by the Additional Sessions Judge) was liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the objection and, accordingly, returned the appeal for presentation to the proper court. The correctness and validity of that order is the subject matter of Cr. R. C. No. 457 of 1960.The common question of law which arose in the two cases and which has been argued before us is :

(3.) The proviso to section 409, as it stood before the amendment of 1955, was substantially the same as Sub-section (2) of Section 409 after the amendment of 1955 so far as the hearing of appeals by Additional Sessions Judge was concerned. Prior to the amendment of 1955, the practice was for all appeals to the Court of Session to be taken on file only by the Sessions Judge.