VENKAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This transfer petition is filed for purpose of transfering the revision petition which has been initiated by the petitioner before the Sessions Court of Khammam to this Court. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel that in a case instituted by police on his complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sathupalli in C.C.No. 266 of 1988, the case ended in acquittal. The Public Prosecutor or the State did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal. He therefore, preferred Crl. P.No. 61 of 1992 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam. The said revisions isstill pending. The petitioner however, apprehends that the Sessions Court has no power to entertain and decidea revision petition in which acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate is challenged. The apprehension is misplaced. Section 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code runs as follows:-

(2.) On proper reading of the section as a whole it will be clear that all the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 401 so far as it may be applied to such proceeding in the said sub-section to the High Court shall be considered as references to the Sessions Judge. Thus the sessions Judge also has powers as stated in Section 401, Cr.P.C. under Section 401 (5) when an appeal lies but is not preferred, a remision can be entertained under certain circumstances. The powers on revision are therefore identical. There is no room for any doubt that the Sessions Judge has no power to consider the revision in question. In the circumstances of the case there is no need to transfer the Criminal Revision Petition No. 61 of 1992 from the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam to this Court.

(3.) The Transfer Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is therefore dismissed. However, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam is directed to dispose of the Crl.R.P. 61/1992 on merit as early as possible.