1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C) to set aside order dated 03.5.2012 passed in Transfer Crl.M.P.No.202 of 2012 (Crl. M.P.) on the file of the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, transferring C.C.No.725 of 2009 (C.C) on the file of the Court of VIII Additioinal Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, to try and dispose of along with S.C.No.540 of 2011 on the file of the latter Court under Section 408 Cr. P.C.

2. Whereas the petitioners herein are the respondents in the Crl. M.P. and A1 to A8 in the C.C., the second respondent herein is the petitioner in the Crl. M.P. and defacto complainant in the C.C. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Crl. M.P. from here afterwards.

3. The question raised here is whether by virtue of clause (iii) of Section 407(1)(c) Cr. P.C., the Sessions Judge got authority to transfer the case as was done in this case.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that by virtue of the said clause under Section 407(1)(c) Cr. P.C., only the High Court got the authority to commit the case to the Court of Session for conducting necessary trial along with the Sessions Case by reason of which the Metropolitan Sessions Judge got no authority to transfer the C.C., which in fact amounts to committing the case to the Court of VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad directly which is not permissible under law. He has placed reliance in this context upon a decision reported in C.H. Abdul Salam v Sameera (2007 CRI.L.J. 1877) rendered by Kerala High Court.

5. Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether the transfer of the case effected by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge is proper or not. With regards to the subject on hand it is necessary to distinguish what is meant by committal and what is meant by transfer of a criminal case from one criminal court to another criminal Court within a sessions division as per law. In fact the language employed in Section 209 Cr. P.C. itself gives a clear picture of this distinction which is fortified by the corresponding provisions enumerated in the Sections 407 and 408 Cr. P.C. This section deals with the question of committal of a case to the Court of Session from a Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class when an offence is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions subject to the conditions incorporated there under. Only in this Section the question of sending a criminal case, which is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, to a Court of Session is termed as “committal”. The language used is to be taken in the true spirit of the intendment of the legislation. Therefore, any other mode of sending a criminal case from one Court to another Court as employed in the Code cannot be taken as “committal” of that case from the first Court to the second Court. It actually enjoins: Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it when in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall-

(a) Commit, after Complying with the provisions of Section 207 or Section 208, as the case may be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this code relating to bail, remand the accused the custody until Such commitment has been made;

(b) Subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;

(c) Send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence;

(d) Notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.

6. Section 407 Cr. P.C., deals with the power of the High Court in respect of transfer of cases and appeals, whereas Section 408 Cr. P.C., deals with the power of Sessions J