VENNA MALLAIAH Vs. VENNA LAXMI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision on behalf of Vina Malliah and others arises out of proceedings under Section 145, Cr.PC The respondent filed a petition under Section 145, Cr.PC before the Revenue Divisional Officer Markapur against the present petitioners. The learned Revenue Divisional Officer after calling for the police report passed a preliminary order under Section 145, Cr.PC on 5 -2 -1957, calling upon the present petitioners to file their written statements regarding their claims. Subsequently the matter was transferred to the First Class Magistrate, Markapur by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

(2.) THE allegations in the petition are that he owns the entire survey No. 96 of Ganjwaripalli, a hamlet of Venkatadripalem, that Survey No, 96 adjoins survey No, 97 on' the north of the latter survey number, that one Kasulapati Lakshmi Narasama owned 0 -88 cents of survey No. 97 adjoining Ac. 1 -76 cents of his land which he cultivated as tenant, that respondent 1 (the first petitioner herein) purported to have purchased 0 -88 cents of land of Lakshmi Narasama and took possession thereof and separated it by metes and bounds and ploughed his land i.e., survey No. 97 whereupon he filed C.C. 774/56 against the respondents in the Second Class Magistrate's Court which was dismissed as a civil dispute, that subsequently owing to differences at the time of elections, the respondent wanted to disturb the possession of the petitioners in the northern portion, Ac. 76 cents of the land in survey No. 97 which is likely to cause disturbance or annoyance to public peace and safety.

(3.) RELYING on the case of Ramayya v. Venkata Seshavatharam (S), A.I.R. 1956 Andh97 :, 1955 Andh WR 44 the learned Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that revision under Section 435, Cr.PC should not be entertained in the High Court unless the petitioners moved the Sessions Court in the first instance. The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that under Section 435, Cr.PC the High Court and the Sessions Judge have concurrent jurisdiction and that it is at the option of the aggrieved party to file a revision either in the Sessions Court or in the High Court as he thinks fit. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents that no special, exceptional or extraordinary grounds have been shown by the petitioners to move this Court without approaching the inferior court.