STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. G SANJEEVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision cases arise out of the orders of the Sessions judge, Adilabad under Section 494 Criminal Procedure Code on his refusal to accord permission to the proposed withdrawal by the Public Prosecutor pending before him. It appears that in the first case which forms the subject matter of Sessions Case No. 9 of 1961 in all 29 accused are involved while in the second case, the subject matter of SC No. 8 of 1961, 31 accused are facing trial. A perusal of the charge sheet and the committal order will indicate that the offence with which the accused were charged are of sufficiently grave nature viz., rioting armed with deadly weapons attempt to commit murder, dacoity, voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt etc., under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 395 I.P.C. In the other case, equally grave allegations are made. Both the offences are alleged to have been committed on the same date viz, 27-12-1959.

(2.) Briefly, the allegations are that on the date of incident one worker who was suffering from epilepsy was drowned in a cistern in Bungalow No. 5 occupied by one of the officers in the Sir Silk Colony. Taking advantage of it, the accused who are mainly workers of the said factory, led by their union president and other office bearers, took law into their hands and started an orgy of loot and arson damaging the factory properties and that of the General Secretary of the Sir Silk Factory against whom they were nursing a grievance for the rejection of their demands from a considerable time. Later in the day they seem to have burnt the huts of some loyal workers and thus caused considerable damage to the property of the factory and of the officers of the Colony, particularly of the General Secretary.

(3.) These cases after a chequered careers with which we are not immediately concerned came to be committed in the Court of Sessions, Adilabad for trial and at this stage petitions were filed by the Public Prosecutor, Adilabad under Section 494 Criminal Procedure Code for the withdrawal. This was vehemently opposed to by the administration who were the complainants in the case. The learned Sessions Judge on a consideration of the arguments advanced refused to accord his consent for the withdrawal. The revisions are directed against this order.