LAWS(APH)-1985-4-2

A JOGI NAIDU Vs. KOYALADA VENKATARAMANA

Decided On April 25, 1985
A.JOGI NAIDU Appellant
V/S
KOYALADA VENKATARAMANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Revision case is at the instance of the de facto complainant in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1983 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam to enhance the sentence awarded to the accused, charge sheeted under Ss. 148, 324, 326 and 307, I.P.C. The transfer criminal miscellaneous petition is for transfer of Criminal Appeals 182 and 183 of 1983 on the file of the Principle Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam to this court to be tried along with Crl.R.C. No. 520/84. The accused filed appeals as against the convictions and sentences and the petitioner seeks to have those appeals transferred.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondents accused took a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the criminal revision case, as the petitioner could have sought the remedy before the Principal Sessions Judge and by this process of seeking for transfer of Criminal Appeals, the accused are deprived of the right of appeal before the Sessions Court and a revision thereon to the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeking to refute this contention, stated that the petitioner has a choice either to file a petition before the Sessions Court or the High Court by way of revision and this choice cannot be fettered and, therefore, the question of depriving the right of the accused does not arise and by transfer of the appeals the accused are facilitated to have consideration of the appeal, on both facts and law, by the superior forum viz, High Court.

(3.) In Puvvula Abbulu v. State, 1975 Cri LJ 139, the Division Bench of this Court held that choice is conferred on a person to move either the High Court or the Sessions Judge under S. 397, Cr.P.C. In the event of filing revision before the Sessions Judge, the recourse to revision before the High Court is precluded if the Sessions Judge rejects the revision application. To this extent, there is a radical departure from the predecessor provisions of Cr.P.C. The Division Bench held as follows at Page 141 :-