Judgment :

These two criminal revision petitions are filed by two accused persons who are impleaded by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni by order dated 04.06.2012 in S.C. No.63 of 2009. This case is a most horrible offence of attacking one group of persons against another group of persons resulting in 11 deaths. After completing investigation, the police filed charge sheet against 46 persons for punishing them for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302/149 I.P.C and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 25(1)(B)(b), 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. Out of the said accused, case was split up against 7 of them and rest of the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. When trial was going on, the lower Court passed the impugned order. Prosecution evidence was completed and the matter was coming up for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At that stage, some dramatic incident had happened in the lower Court.

2) On 04.06.2012 at about 11.10 A.M the lower Court called the Sessions Case. All the accused and their 5 defence counsel turned up in Court. At that time, D.T.D.C courier person entered into the lower Court hall and gave an envelop addressed to the lower Court. The lower Court opened the cover in open Court and came to know that it was copy of an anonymous petition sent by ‘some witnesses’. Contents of the said letter is to the effect that the lower Court was not taking steps in this case under Section 319 Cr.P.C even though there is sufficient material is against the revision petitioners viz., Kotla Hari Chakrapani Reddy and Cherukulapadu Narayana Reddy.

3) The lower Court noted that it did not take note of contents of the said anonymous petition; but during the course of preparation of examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C that Court went through the entire prosecution evidence and particularly evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 for taking steps under Section 319 Cr.P.C against the revision petitioners herein.

4) It is contended by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the dramatic incident of bringing an envelop addressed to the Court by a courier boy when the case is called in the lower Court, is all stage managed and artificial and that the lower Court should not have taken serious note of contents of the anonymous petition. The Public Prosecutor also contended that the way in which the lower Court acted on an anonymous petition sent through courier service, is unwarranted. But this Court is of the opinion that irrespective of genesis in the lower Court for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C, it has to be seen whether the said provision is properly invoked by the lower Court in proper manner in the presence of proper material on record. According to the lower Court, there is sufficient material on record in the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C against the revision petitioners herein. For reasons which came to the forefront in this case, the prosecuting agency should have in all fairness filed petition in the lower Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C for proceeding with the case against the revision petitioners also. But, the Additional Public Prosecutor who conducted trial in the lower Court did not come forward with any such petition muchless with any such request in the lower Court at any time after examination of P.Ws 1 to 4. Even though the prosecution party i.e., relations of the deceased as well as the injured could have taken separate steps in this regard to implead the revision petitioners for facing charges in this case during trial in the lower Court, they have not also come forward with any such steps, for reasons best known to them. Instead, they have resorted to sending petition to higher Courts marking copy of the same to the lower Court. It appears that it is their grievance that the investigating agency colluded with the revision petitioners in deleting their names from the charge sheet in a