Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J. :- These two appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment and order dated August 25, 1970, of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Revision Case No. 727 of 1969 and Criminal Appeals Nos. 201 and 202 of 1969, setting aside the judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Sessions Case No. 121 of 1968 and remanding the entire case for retrial.

2. In connection with the murder of two persons, Gogineni Koteswara Rao and Venigandla Ratnababu, and the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses, PWs 5 to 7 and 13, on August 16, 1968, thirty persons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Guntur for offences under Section 148 and Section 302 read with S. 149 or alternatively under Sec. 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge found that accused Nos. 5 to 7, 14, 18, 19, 24 and 25 had participated in part of the occurrence that took place on that day and convicted them under Section 148. The 5th accused was convicted under Section 302 for causing the death of Ratnababu and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Accused Nos. 6 and 7, who were found guilty of causing simple injuries to Ratnababu, were convicted under Section 324. Accused Nos. 14, 19, 24 and 25 were found guilty of causing injuries to PW 7. Accused No. 25 was convicted under Section 323 while the three others were convicted under Section 324. Accused No. 18 was found guilty of causing injuries to PW 13 and convicted under Section 324. Sentences of imprisonment of varying terms were imposed on the accused found guilty under Sections 323 and 324. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment was also imposed on all these eight accused for the offence under Section 148. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge found that, none of the accused can be held guilty of the offence of causing the death of Koteswara Rao nor for the injuries sustained by PWs 5 and 6. Accordingly he acquitted the eight convicted accused of all the other charges. Similarly he has also found that the other twenty-two accused were not guilty of any of the offences with which they were charged and accordingly acquitted them.

3. Accused No. 5 challenged his conviction before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1969. The other seven convicted accused, namely, accused Nos. 6, 7, 14, 18, 19, 24 and 25, filed Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1969. One Gogineni Venkateswara Rao, who gave evidence as PW 7 and who was a brother of the deceased, Koteswara Rao, filed Criminal Revision Case No. 727 of 1969 under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court against all the thirty accused challenged the several acquittals recorded against them by the learned Sessions Judge. The High Court allowed the two Criminal Appeals as well as the Criminal Revision and after setting aside the judgment of the Sessions Court, remanded the entire case for retrial. Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 1970 is by all the thirty accused against the order in Criminal Revision Case No. 727 of 1969; while Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1970 is by the eight accused, who had been convicted for different offences under Sections 302, 148, 323 and 324.

4. Mr. Basi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, has attacked the judgment of the High Court on the ground that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering a retrial at the instance of a private party, namely, PW 7. According to the learned counsel, the judgment of the Trial Court does not suffer from any of the infirmities the existence of which alone gives jurisdiction to a High Court under exceptional circumstances to interfere under its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a private party. It was further urged that there has been no consideration of the appeals filed by the eight accused, who had been convicted of certain offences. The reasons