VENKATAPPA Vs. NAGIREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Bali Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that C.C. No. 7/1978 is a counter case to Sessions case No. 14/1978 and both the cases should, therefore, be tried and disposed of by one and the same officer in the interests of justice, as they arise out of the same transac:ion According to him, the occurrence took place on 29-5-1977 in which the petitioner and seven more persons were badly beaten by respondents 1 to 27, who are the accused, with deadly weapons, and they formed into unlawful assembly with the object of causing the death of Govinda Reddy and attacked the petitioner and seven others. At that time, the 1st respondent was armed with a gun. The petitioner gave a report to Roddam Police Station. The police investigated into the case and filed a chargesheet against respondents 1 to 27 for offences punishable under Sections 148, 324, 352, 326, 109 and 149 I.P.C. That case is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madakasira as C.C. No. 7/1978. The petitioner also filed a private complaint in respect of the same incident for offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 323, 307 read with 109 and 149 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act before the same Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took the case on file as P.R.C. No. 1/1978. But later respondents 1 to 27 filed an application Cr. M.P. No. 203/1978. The learned Magistrate converted the same into Calendar Case and it was clubbed with C.C. No. 7/1978. In respect of the same occurrence a counter report was given by the respondents party before the police. , After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet. The Magistrate commited that case to the court of Sessions and it was numbered as S.CNo 14/1978 by the Sessions Judge and the same is now pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur for trial of offences under Sections 147,148,341,324, 323, and 307 read with it Sec.149. The Learned counsel thus contends tnat both C.C. No.2/1978 and Sessions case No. 14/1978 arise out of the same transaction and they are case and counter case and hence it is desirable in the interests of justice that C. C. No. 7/78 should be transferred to the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur to be tried and disposed of along with Sessions case No. 14/1978.

(2.) Opposing the petition, Sri Adinarayana Reddy contends that there is no necessity for both the cases to be tried by one and the same Judge. He contends that C.C. No. 7/1978 is triable by a First Class Magistrate, but not by the Sessions Judge and it should not be tried by the Sessions Judge in the interests of justice and the accused, if convicted, will be deprived of their right to prefer appeals to the Sessions Judge. He also contends that each case is different from the other and hence police after investigation into the case felt it necessary to file two separate charge-sheets in two different courts in view of the nature of the offences. He also contends that though the police filed chargesheet in C.C.No. 7/1978 the police did not file any transfer petition that both the cases should be tried by one and the same Judge. In such a case the complainant in C.C. No. 7/1978 is not competent to file this petition in this court for transfer.

(3.) It is now well settled that if both the cases arise out of the same transaction, they should be tried as case and counter case and should be disposed of by one and the same officer. If the case and counter cases are tried by one and the same judge, be has to record evidence in each case separately and hear the arguments in the first case. He should not pronounce the judgment, but should postpone it till the completion of the trial and arguments of the Second case and he should pronounce the judgment separately in each case at one and the same time. This is necessary in the interests of justice.