SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(AP) 627

AVINASH SOMAKANT BHATE
Venkaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State OF A. P. Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A. P. Hyderabad – Respondent


A. S. BHATE, J.

( 1 ) THIS transfer petition is filed for purpose of transfering the revision petition which has been initiated by the petitioner before the Sessions Court of khammam to this Court. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel that in a case instituted by police on his complaint before the judicial First Class Magistrate at Sathupalli in C. C. No. 266 of 1988, the case ended in acquittal. The Public Prosecutor or the State did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal. He therefore, preferred Crl. P. No. 61 of 1992 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam. The said revisions isstill pending. The petitioner however, apprehends that the Sessions Court has no power to entertain and decidea revision petition in which acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate is challenged. The apprehension is misplaced. Section 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code runs as follows:-"399. Sessions Judge s powers of revision (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 4



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top