N NARAYANA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions are inter connected and they can be disposed of by acommon order. These two revision petitions are filed by the persons who are sought to be brought on record as Accused Nos. A-9 to A-12 in Crl.RC.No. 322 of 1995 and A-13 in Crl.RC.No. 323/95. They filed these two revision petitions against the orders of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy in Crl.M.P.No. 133 of 1994 in S.C.No. 231 of 1993 dated l3-4-1995 where in the applications filed by them to reconsider the orders in Crl.MP.No. 86/94 were rejected.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of this cases are that initially the prosecution filed the charge sheet against A-1 to A-8 in S.C.No. 231/93 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy, under Sections 342 and 306 IPC. After commital, the case was taken up by Assistant Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy for trial in S.C.No. 231/93.During the course of the trial, the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to bring the petitioners herein as A-9 to A-13 and the Assistant Sessions Judge simply ordered the petitions without giving any notice. After the petitioners were produced before the Court they filed Crl.M.P.No. 133/94 contending that the order passed by the Court below in Crl.M.P.No. 86/94 without giving notice to them isopposed to the Judgment this Court reported in 1994(2) ALT (shortnotes.) 36, and also opposed to the principle of audi alteram partem. But the Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the application thinking that no-where in the Act it was stated that notice should be given to the proposed accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and also on the ground that the order of this Court is subsequent to the order passed by him. It is unfortunate to comment, that the Assistant Sessions Judge does not know the fundamentals of jurisprudence when adecision of this Court is brought to his notice, he is bound to obey the command of law and follow the same. But the lower Court erred in passing the above order. It is always open to the parties to approach this court inrevision against the orders passed by the Magistrate by raising the contentions available to them. Further the order passed earlier was an ex-parte order and the same cannot be treated as final order. The case has to be disposed of on merits after hearing both sides. When the petitioners brought to the notice of the Court the ratio decidendi laid down by this Court, the Assistant Sessions Judgeought not have held that the Judgment is not bhding on the Court as the order pronounced by that Court is earlier to the order of this Court. He is bound to follow the Judgment when an application was filed to correct the erroneous order passed by him earlier, whether the judgment of this Court is earlier or subsequent to the order passed by him. Secondly the observation of the Assistant Sessions Judge is that no provision was made to give notice to the proposed accused and he can pass an order straightaway is also opposed to the very cordinal principles of Criminal jurisprudence that no one shall be punished without giving due opportunity to put forth his case. That is to say when a Court passed an order effecting the rights of the parties it has always to observe the principle of audi alteram partem and any orders can be passed only after hearing the parties in an application filed by either of the parties or in exercise of suo motu powers however strong the case may be, against the proposed respondents. The Asst. Sessions Judge clearly went wrong on both the grounds while dismissing the application I amleft with no other alternative to set aside the erroneous order and direct the Court below to dispose of the application filed by the Public Prosecutor in Crl.M.P.No. 86/94 on merits after hearing both the parties.