Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.CHANDRA REDDY, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU, SRINIVASA CHARI
Alapati Sriramamurty - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 12-10-58
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTIONS 435 TO 439 - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - REVISION PETITIONS - HIGH COURT'S JURISDICTION - ORDINARILY, HIGH COURT SHOULD NOT ENTERTAIN REVISIONS DIRECT FROM ORDERS OF SUBORDINATE MAGISTRATES UNLESS THE PARTY CONCERNED HAD FIRST APPROACHED THE SESSIONS COURT OR THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AS THE CASE MAY BE.
Fact of the Case:
THE QUESTION REFERRED TO THE FULL BENCH WAS: "WHAT IS THE PRACTICE TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF CRIMINAL REVISIONS FILED BY AGGRIEVED PARTIES UNDER-SECTIONS 435 AND 439, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, WITHOUT APPROACHING AN INFERIOR COURT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE?"
Finding of the Court:
THE HIGH COURT SHOULD NOT ENTERTAIN REVISIONS DIRECT FROM ORDERS OF SUBORDINATE MAGISTRATES UNLESS THE PARTY CONCERNED HAD FIRST APPROACHED THE SESSIONS COURT OR THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AS THE CASE MAY BE.
Issues: WHETHER THE HIGH COURT SHOULD ENTERTAIN REVISIONS DIRECT FROM ORDERS OF SUBORDINATE MAGISTRATES WITHOUT THE PARTY CONCERNED FIRST APPROACHING THE SESSIONS COURT OR THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE.
Ratio Decidendi: THE LEGISLATURE HAS ADVISEDLY CONFERRED COORDINATE JURISDICTION ON THE SEVERAL AUTHORITIES IN REGARD TO THESE MATTERS AND THERE IS NO REASON WHY EFFECT SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO LEGISLATIVE INTENT. THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE ANY JUSTIFICATION TO PERMIT PARTIES TO BY-PASS THE LOWER COURTS AND RESORT TO THE HIGH COURT STRAIGHTWAY WITHOUT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS.
Final Decision: THE CASES WILL GO BACK TO THE BENCH FOR DISPOSAL ON MERITS.
( 1 ) THESE revision cases raise a question of practice and they have been referred to a Full Bench as it was thought desirable that a final and authoritative decision should be given by a Full Bench of this Court. The question referred to the Full Bench is : "what is the practice to be followed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of criminal revisions filed by aggrieved parties under-Sections 435 and 439, Criminal Procedure Code, without approaching an inferior Court in the first instance?" st is not necessary to recapitulate the facts of the case as we are not called upon to give any decision on the merits but only decide the general practice. The problem that presents itself has to be solved -with reference to a group of sections of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sections 435 to 439 of the Code so far as relevant may be extracted- "435 (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge or District Magistrate or any Sub-Divisional Magistrate empowered by "the State Government in this behalf, may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within the local limits of its or his jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court and may when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended and, if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. ***** "436. On examining any record under Section 435 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the District Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates Subordinate to him to make, and the District Magistrate may himself make, or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or Sub-section (3) of Section 204, or into the case o any person accused of an offence who has been discharged : 437. When, on examining the record of any case under Section 435 or otherwise, the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate considers that such case is tri able exclusively by the Court of Session and that an accused person has been improperly discharged by the inferior Court, the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate may cause him to be arrested, and may thereupon, instead of directing a fresh inquiry, order him to be committed for trial upon the matter of which he has been, in the opinion of the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate, improperly discharged ; ***** 438. (1) The Sessions or District Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, on examining under Section 435 or otherwise the record of any proceedings, report for the orders of the High Court the result of such examination, and, when such report contains a recommendation that a sentence or order be reversed or altered, may order that the execution of such sentence or order be suspended, and, if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond. ***** 439. (1) In the case of any proceeding the re cord of which has been called for by itself or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of appeal by Sections 423, 426, 427 and 428 or on a Court by Section 338, and may enhance the sentence; and when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in manner provided by Section 429.
( 2 ) IT is manifest that these sections vest controlling and supervisory jurisdictions in the authorities mentioned therein. They also confer concurrent jurisdiction on Courts enumerated therein. Sections 435 empowers the High Court, the Sessions Court, the District Magistrate, etc. , to call for records from any inferior Court to sati
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.