STATE OF HYDERABAD Vs. MURAHARI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MURAHARI Rao, Danda Krishnamurthy, Goundla Mada Narasimha, Goundla Mada Yellayya and Ambati Narasimha, 5 accused were charged before the Special Tribunal 'a' with offences of murder under Sections 243, 30, 124 and 125 of the Hyderabad Penal Code, alleged to have been committed on 14. 10. 1948 and were convicted and sentenced to death and various terms of imprisonments. On appeal to the High Court, there was a difference of opinion between Siadat Ali J. and Srinivaschari J. and the case was referred to Manoher Pershad J. who agreeing with Siadat Ali J. quashed the conviction and sentence of the persons accused on the ground that they were not afforded an opportunity to engage, a lawyer to defend themselves and ordered as follows on 22. 8. 50:

(2.) BY the time this order of remand was made the Special Tribunals were abolished and Special Judges were appointed under the Hyderabad Special Tribunals (Termination) and Special Judges (Appointment) Regulation X of 1359-F and although there was no specific direction in the order of the High Court to remand the case to a Special Judge appointed under the aforesaid Regulation, the file was sent by the office of the High Court with letter No. 1965, dated 25. 8. 50 to the Special Judge for Medak and Nalgonda holding his Court in the city of Hyderabad. While the case was pending on the file of the Special Judge, Medak and Nalgonda, it appears that the Chief Minister purporting to act under Sub-Section (2) of Section 5 of the said Regulation, transferred it to the Sessions Judge, Medak for "trial in accordance with law" who in turn transferred the case for disposal to the Additional Sessions Judge, Medak. After the case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Medak the accused put - in a petition challenging the jurisdiction of that Court on the ground 'inter alia' thai being a Sessions Court it cannot take cognizance of the case without an order of commitment by a Magistrate duly empowered in that behalf. The Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 1. 3. 51 rejected the petition for, the reason that once cognizance was taken by a competent court there was no question of further taking cognizance of the same offence.

(3.) AFTER the application of the Indian Penal Code and Indian Criminal Procedure Code to all Part-B States and the re-allocation of territorial jurisdiction, the file was transferred to the Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. Even before the Sessions Judge, Nalgonda who incidentally happened to be the Addl. Sessions Judge of Medak who passed the order dated 1. 3. 51, a similar petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to take cognizance of the case was presented on 24. 12. 51, on which the Sessions Judge passed the following order dated 26. 12. 51: