KARUTURI SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 24.4.1983 at about 2.00 p.m. a rioting took place In Anakempalam village, in Kothapet taluk in which several people on both sides received injuries; The police of Ravulapalem registered two crimes on the basis of reports given by both sides. In Crime No 65 of t983 the petitioners herein and three others figure as accused. After filing of the charge sheet it was numbered as P R C. No.6 of 1883 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapet and the case was committed to the Court of Session and it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 12 of 1884. The Assistant Sessions Judge tried the 10 accused for offences punishable under sections 447 148, 307 307 read with Sec 1149 and 352 read with Sec. 149 I,P.C. He however convicted A-1 to A-7 the petitioners herein under sactions 326 read with Sec. 149 and 324 read with sec. 149 I.P C and sentenced sach of them to one year R I. and six months' R.I. respectively. Thev were also sentenced under section 148 I P.C to six months R.I. Thev were further sentenced to three months' R I. for the offence unde,r section 347 I.P.C. A-1 to A-7 were also sentenced to pay a fine of. Rs. 1000/- each for the nffenc" under sec. 326 read with sec 149 IPC in default to six months S I. The other case filed by the accused against the prosecution party was numbered as C C. No.137 of 1983 to be tried bv the First class Magistrate, Kothapet The petitioners viz., the convicted in S.C. 12 of 1984 fited an appeal and it was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1984 which came up for hearing before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. On behalf of the defence Crl M.P. No. 61 of 1985 was filed with a prayer that the certified copy of the charge sheet filed in CC. No. 137 of 1983 by the Station House Officer, Ravulapalem against the prosecution witnesses in this case should be received as additional evidence. The same was allowed and the charge sheet was marked as Ex. D-25. The 1st Additional Sessions Judge, after a perusal of the relevant records in both the cases came to the conclusion that they are case and counter and each party accused the other party as the aggressor and in such a situation both the cases should have been tried bv the Assistant Sessions Judge following the procedure to be adopted in a case and counter .In that view of the matter he set aside the convictions and sentences of the petitioners and ordered retrial of the case. The learned Frist Addrtional Sessfons Judge directed the judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapet to commit C.C. No. 137 of 1983 to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge for trial and disposal along with S.C. 12 of 1984. Questioning the order of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioners, viz., the accused in S.C. No 12 of 1984 have filed this petition,

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned First Additional Sessions fudge has erred in directing that C C. No. 137 of 1983 should be committed to the Court of Session on the whole ground that it is a counter case to Session case No. 12 of 1984 and that such a direction is illegal and contrary to the decisions of this Court, Reliance is placed on Ummadi Pulla Reddi, In re (1)1955 ALT. (Criminal) 111, wherein it is held thus :-

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor however submitted that in any event, since these cases being a case and a counter it will be just and proper to follow the procedure which is generally adopted is a case and in a counter-case and from that angle the order of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge can be upheld. A careful perusal of all the aforesaid decisions shows that it Is not open to the Magistrate to commit the case before him to the Court of Session on the mere ground that the counter-case is committed or is pending before the Sessions Judge.