Heard Sri E.V.Bhagiratha Rao and Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners respectively in Crl.P.Nos.2773 of 2009 and 2937 of 2009, Sri A. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the first respondent in both the petitions, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor in both the petitions.

Bereft of other details, the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.1378 of 2009 in D.V.C.No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, dated 13.04.2009, is a sequel to the order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.M.P.No.101 of 2009 in D.V.A.No.78 of 2009 dated 09.04.2009. The learned Sessions Judge was considering an application from the first respondent herein for a direction to the concerned Magistrate to implement the order in D.V.C.No.5 of 2007 and the learned Sessions Judge, coming to a conclusion that an offence under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (for short ‘the Act’) appears to have been committed by the respondents before him as seen from the statements of the parties recorded, still withheld passing an order under Section 31 of the Act and due to the pendency of execution proceedings before the trial Court, directed the concerned Magistrate to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The learned Sessions Judge further directed to take up the matter from day to day, not to grant any adjournment and both the parties to appear before the trial Court on 13.04.2009.

In obedience to the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, the impugned order was passed firstly dismissing the applications filed under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners herein for condoning their absence or dispensing with their presence and the trial Court straight away felt that there was no other option except passing sentence against the petitioners herein under Section 31 of the Act and passed sentence accordingly imposing a sentence of imprisonment for 9 months each and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each against all the respondents with a default sentence of one month each in case of non-payment of fine.

It is this order, which is under challenge herein. Before considering the merits of the impugned order, it should be made clear that the order of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.M.P.No.101 of 2009 in D.V.A.No.78 of 2009 dated 09.04.2009 either has admittedly become final in the absence of any challenge to the same by either party or is atleast not the subject matter of challenge herein and therefore, the question herein is only the legality of the manner in which the said order is sought to be implemented by the learned Magistrate.

What all the learned Sessions Judge directed the learned Magistrate to do, while presuming an offence under Section 31 of the Act to have been committed by the respondents before him, is to follow the procedure prescribed under the various provisions of the Act and to pass appropriate orders expeditiously, but not giving any liberty to the learned Magistrate to travel beyond the Statute or the Rules framed there under or taking away or restricting the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to judicially and judiciously determine the guilt or otherwise of any person in respect of an offence punishable under Section 31 (1) of the Act. The order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be to the contrary effect or convey any contrary impression as then it would amount to exercising a jurisdiction not vested in the learned Sessions Judge but vested in the learned Magistrate.

Assuming that an offence within the scope of Section 31 of the Act has been committed by any person, which makes him liable for the punishment under Section 31 (1) of the Act, such punishment shall be imposed on such violators only in accordance with sub-Sections 2 and 3 of Section 31 of the Act. Sub-Section 2 of Section