RAJAK Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in these two appeals are A-1 to A-7 in Sessions Case No. 66/77 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chodavaram. They were convicted for an offence punishable under section 395 I.P.C., and each is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 1/2 year.

(2.) Sri Rajagopala Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants, contends on the question of law that the convictions and sentences awarded by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be maintainable. According to him, the predecessor of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge recorded the evidence and examined the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C, and also examined the defence witnesses and after be was transferred, the present Assistant Sessions Judge who succeeded him heard the arguments and pronounced the judgment. The learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, contends that the successor Sessions Judge is not permitted by law to hear the arguments and pronounce the judgment while his predecessor recorded the evidence, the statement of the accused and the defence evidence and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge ought to have re-opened the case and proceeded with de novo trial instead of bearing the arguments and pronouncing the judgment.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that the irregularity is curable and the proceedings are not vitiated and the convictions and sentences, therefore, should not be set aside. In support of the contention, he relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Re Abrahim Ali.