APHC010704102010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 588/2010 And I.A.No.1 of 2010 (Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2393 of 2010) In/And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE (SR) No. 29410 of 2010 Between: Challa Venkateswarlu and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Collector CS and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): ANUSHA DONTI REDDY LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of by this common order, since these two Criminal Revision Cases arise out of the case and counter case. The Criminal Revision Case No.588 of 2010 has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2010 and Crl.R.C.(SR).No.29410 of 2010 Dated: 19.03.2025 ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the Judgment dated 18.01.2010, passed in S.C.No.181 of 2009, on the file of the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada, for the alleged offences under Sections 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’). The Criminal Revision Case (SR) No.29410 of 2010 has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C’, challenging the Judgment dated 18.01.2010, passed in S.C.No.182 of 2009, on the file of the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada, for the alleged offence under Sections 307 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.’ 2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Mr. Ismail, learned counsel representing Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Judge erred in not attaching any importance to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are injured; erred in ignoring the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 who are witnesses to the incident; the case and the counter case were not heard in proper perspective and disposed of; even though the prosecution had proved the guilt of the respondent No.1 beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent No.1 and urged that the revision case may be allowed. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2010 and Crl.R.C.(SR).No.29410 of 2010 Dated: 19.03.2025 4. Per Contra, Mr. M.Siva Ram, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the learned trial Court having appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail came to correct conclusion and acquitted the respondent No.1 as he has not committed any offence. It is further contended that in fact, the petitioners were the aggressors, the counter case in S.C.No.182 of 2009 was wrongly ended in acquittal and urged to allow the Crl.R.C.(SR).No.29410 of 2010. 5. Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the learned trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence in both the cases and for the reasons mentioned in those Judgments, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused by name Yarlagadda Padda Raju, in S.C.No.181 of 2009 and the accused Nos.1 to 5 by names Yendru Veerababu, Yendru Sayanna, Yendru Venkatarao, Yendru Rambabu and Yendru Satyam in S.C.No.182 of 2009 and urged to dismiss these two revision cases as they are not maintainable. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 7. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgments in S.C.No.181 of 2009 and S.C.No.182 of 2009, passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada, are correct, legal, and proper with 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2010 and Crl.R.C.(SR).No.29410 of 2010 Dated: 19.03.2025 respect to their finding, or judgments, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 8. Admittedly, the dispute in between the petitioners and respondent No.1 was dealt as case and counter. In a case and counter, the learned trial Court would conduct the trial simultaneously in the two cases one after the other and after the completion of evidence and on hearing of the arguments, would dispose of the two cases one after the other on the same day by finding who are the aggressors and who are at fault. 9. It is apposite to refer the Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sudhir and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, of which para Nos.8, 10, 12, 13, 16 and 17 reads as follows: 8. It is a salutary practice, when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, they are tried and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgments on the same day. Such two different versions of the same incident resulting in two criminal cases are compendiously called "case and counter-case" by some High Courts and "cross-cases" by some other High Courts. Way back in the nineteen hundred and twenties a Division Bench of the Madras High Court (Waller and Cornish, JJ.) made a suggestion (Goriparthi Krishtamma, In re¹ that "a case and counter-case arising out of the same affair should always, if practicable, be tried by the same court; and each party would represent themselves as having been the innocent victims of the aggression of the other". 10. We are unable to understand why the legislature is still parrying to incorporate such a salubrious practice as a statutory requirement in the Code. The practical reasons for adopting a procedure that such cross-cases shall be tried by the same court, can be summarised thus: (1) It staves off the danger of an 1 (2001) 2 SCC 688 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2010 and Crl.R.C.(SR).No.29410 of 2010 Dated: 19.03.2025 accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court. (2) It deters conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts. (3) In reality the case and the counter-case are, to all intents and purposes, different or conflicting versions of one incident. 12. How to implement the said scheme in a situation where one of the two cases (relating to the same incident) is charge- sheeted or complained of, involves offences or offence exclusively triable by a Court of Session, but none of the offences involved in the other case is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The Magistrate before whom the former case reaches has no escape from committing the case to the Sessions Court as provided in Section 209 of the Code. Once the said case is committed to the Sessions Court, thereafter it is governed by the provisions subsumed in Chapter XVIII of the Code. Though, the next case cannot be committed in accordance with Section 209 of the Code, the Magistrate has, nevertheless, power to commit the case to the Court of Session, albeit none of the offences involved therein is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Section 323 is incorporated in the Code to meet similar cases also. That section reads thus: "323. If, in any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings before signing judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session, he shall commit it to that court under the provisions hereinbefore contained and thereupon the provisions of Chapter XVIII shall apply to the commitment so made." 13. The above section does not make an inroad into Section 209 because the former is intended to cover cases to which Section 209 does not apply. When a Magistrate has committed a case on account of his legislative compulsion by Section 209, its cross-case, having no offence exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, must appear to the Magistrate as one which ought to be tried by the same Court of Session. We have already adverted to the sturdy reasons why it should be so. Hence the Magistrate can exercise the special power conferred on him by virtue of Section 323 of the Code when he commits the cross- 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2010 and Crl.R.C.(SR).No.29410 of 2010 Dated: 19.03.2025 case also to the Court of Session. Commitment under Sections 209 and 323 might be through two different channels, but once they are committed their subsequent flow could only be through the stream channelised by the provisions contained in Chapter XVIII” 16. The employment of the word "may" at one place and the word "shall" at another place in the same sub-section unmistakably indicates that when the offence is not triable exclusively by the Sessions Court it is not mandatory that he should order transfer of the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate after framing a charge. In situations where it is advisable for him to try such offence in his court there is no legal obligation to transfer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. One of the instances for not making the transfer is when a case and a counter-case have been committed to the Sessions Court and one of those cases involves an offence exclusively triable by the Sessions Court and the other does not involve any such offence. 17. In the present case, the Sessions Judge ought not to have transferred the second case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate as he did, but he himself should have tried it in the manner indicated in Nathi Laß. To facilitate such a procedure to be adopted we have to set aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge in the second case. We do so.” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Nathilal and others v. State of U.P. and another2 , of which para No.2 reads as under: 2. We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the record-ing of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the argu-ments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on 2 1990 SCC 145 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2010 and Crl.R.C.(SR).No.29410 of 2010 Dated: 19.03.2025 the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other. 11. Indubitably, the learned trial Court adopted the correct procedure in dealing with case and counter case. Coming to the merits of the case in S.C.No.181 of 2009, the learned trial Court pointed out the defects in the case of the prosecution to prove that complainant sustained grievous injuries. The prosecution had not admittedly examined Radiologist to ascertain the injuries sustained by P.W-2 were grievous in nature. Notably, mediator’s report under Ex.P4 and P5 did not contain the signatures of the accused. Therefore, no reliance could be placed on the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 13 for the alleged confession leading to recovery of M.Os1 and 2. The learned Trial Court rightly observed that the evidence adduced by P.Ws. 1 and 2 is not trustworthy and not inspiring any confidence inasmuch as their evidence had not revealed the genesis of the crime. It is important to note that the 1st respondent/accused also suffered injuries. The prosecution had not given any account about the injuries sustained by the respondent No.1, in other words, there was no explanation for the cause of injuries on the respondent No.1. The learned Trial Court having considered the entire gamut of the evidence of the prosecution 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2010 and Crl.R.C.(SR).No.29410 of 2010 Dated: 19.03.2025 and on detail analysis found that the case of the prosecution was not inspiring any confidence to sustain conviction and acquitted the 1st respondent. 12. This Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses sitting like a First or Second Appellate Court as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar3, D Stephens v Nosibolla4 and K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP5. 13. Ironically, the state had not preferred any appeal against the impugned Judgment in S.C.No.181 of 2009. There was no misreading of the evidence. There were no irregularities much less the material irregularities committed by the learned Trial Court for interfering with its judgment. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case No.588 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed. 14. Challenging the Judgment in S.C.No.182 of 2009, the revision was preferred in the year 2010 with a delay of 136 days. The explanation that was offered for condonation of delay is that, there was some communication gap in between the petitioner and his counsel regarding filing of the revision. Therefore, the revision was not filed within time and there occurred 136 days delay in filing the revision. The explanation offered for filing the revision with delay of 136 days is not plausible and convincing. Therefore, this Court is of 3(2002) 6 SCC 650 4AIR 1951 SC 196 5AIR 1962 SC 1788 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.588 of 2010 and Crl.R.C.(SR).No.29410 of 2010 Dated: 19.03.2025 the considered view that the revision case is liable to be dismissed for want of establishing sufficient cause. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case (SR) No.29410 of 2010 is also required to be dismissed for not want of proving sufficient cause. 15. Accordingly, the two criminal revision cases in Criminal Revision Case No.588 of 2010 and Criminal Revision Case (SR) No.29410 of 2010 are dismissed. 16. I.A.No.1 of 2010 (Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2393 of 2010) in Crl.R.C.(SR).No.29410 of 2010 is dismissed for not establishing sufficient cause. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 19.03.2025 M K K