BUDARAJN SESHAGIRI RAO Vs. T V SARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 2nd January, 1975, Dr. Krishna Rao of Hyderabad, married Kamala Devi at Swarana, the place of Kamala Devi's parents. They came to Hyderabad on 3rd January, 1975 and went back to Swarana on 5th January, 1975 for celebration of the "nuptial" ceremony. On. the morning of 6th January, 1975 the body of Dr. Krishna Rao was found in the Kommanur Canal. It was suspected that Dr. Krishna Rao had been murdered by poisoning as he discovered that his bride was already pregnant by some one. There was investigation by the Crime Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department and a chargesheet was laid against 13 persons on 30th June, 1975 before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Chirala. The charge-sheet was in respect of the offences of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, causing disappearance of evidence and fabrication of false evidence and conspiracy to cause disappearance of evidence and to fabricate false evidence. It is worth mentioning here that apart from Kamala Devi, her parents and relatives, two police officers were also named as accused in the charge- sheet filed by the Crime Branch of the C.I.D. Late Dr. Krishna Rao's father, Sri T. V. Sarma, an advocate was dissatisfied with the police charge-sheet. Therefore, he filed a complaint before the Additional Munsif-Magistrate of Chirala against 34 persons including the 13 against whom the police had filed a charge-sheet before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate. The Additional Munsif- Magistrate, examined the complainant on oath. He also examined some other witnesses produced by the complainant. Finally he took cognizance of the case against the 13 persons mentioned in the police charge-sheet and against the persons shown, as A-5 to A-8, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-23, A-24 and A-25 in the complaint. He dismissed the complaint against A-9, A-14, A-26, A-27 and A-32 to A-34 under section 203,Criminal Procedure Code. He refused to take cognizance of the case against A-28 to A-31 on the ground that the sanction of the Government had not been obtained. A-11, A-12, A-13, A-23 and A-24 have filed Crl.R.C. No. 646 of 1975 and A-5 to A-8 have filed Crl.R.C. No. 655 of 1975 against the order of the learned Additional Munsif-Magistrate taking cognizance of the case against them.

(2.) Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Judicial Second Class Magistrate of Chirla, having already taken cognizance of the case, the Additional Munsif- Magistrate had no jurisdiction, to take cognizance of the same case. He also argued that the complainant did not produce all his witnesses before the Magistrate and examine them on oath as required by the proviso to section 202 (2) and therefore, the proceeding before the Magistrate was vitiated. He further argued that no case was made out against the petitioners and, therefore, the Magistrate should rot have issued process to them. Sri T. V. Sarma, the complainant, appeared in person and raised a preliminary objection that the provisions of section 397 (2) were a bar to the exercise of any revisional powers and that, in the face of the express bar under section 397 (2), the inherent powers of the High Court could not also be invoked.

(3.) There appears to be considerable force in the preliminary objection of Sri T.V.Sarma. Section 397 (2)1 bans exercise of revisional powers in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding. The object of section 397 (2) is to prevent interference by revisional Courts with the smooth and even progress of enquiries, trials and other proceedings before inferior Courts. Under the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, not only was there no such limitation on the powers of the revisional Courts, sections 435 and 438 expressly provided for the suspension of the orders of inferior Courts by the revisional Courts pending the examination of the record by the revisional Courts. The new Code has made a clear departure from the old Code and has prohibited interference by revisional Courts with proceedings in inferior Courts at interlocutory stages. Realizing this position the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, merely preserves the inherent powers of the High Court. It is well established that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked so as to do an act which would conffict with an. express provision of law or other general Principles of Criminal Jurisprudence. Therefore, the bar under section 397 (2) cannot be got over by the invocation of the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482, Criminal ProIcedure Code.