ORDER :

These two criminal revision cases filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are from the same individual and as against the same individual and both pertain to the same case and therefore, they are considered together and are to be disposed of together.

2. Crime No.33 of 2010 of R.A.Valasa Police Station was investigated into by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Palakonda and after completion of the investigation, the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam. The police report discloses 37 individuals as A.1 to A.37 committed the offences alleged. It enlisted 55 witnesses. The investigative outcome is that Kagitapalli Village is in Parampeta Panchayat. A.2 is Sarpanch of the village. A.1 is her husband and he was the former Sarpanch. In this village there were groups among some political parties and there were disputes among them. There were also disputes between one political party as against the other political party. There were cases and counter cases in the earlier periods. Since certain allegations came up as against Sarpanch and others about misuse of funds, once again the controversies between groups erupted. It was in that context, the allegations are that all the 37 accused conspired and attacked the opposite group consisting of people belonging to scheduled caste. Some of the accused were holding dangerous deadly weapons and some of the accused were holding stones in their hands. In the attack two persons died and several persons sustained injuries and some of the accused also sustained injuries. Narrating those facts in detail along with the case diaries and other documents and material objects the police report was filed alleging the following offences:

“Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 326, 324, 354, 114, 120(B) and 427 read with 149 I.P.C.; and Sections 3(1)(x) and 2(v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989.”

3. On 27.11.2010 the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate verified the entire record and appraised himself of all the facts and passed the following order:

“Perused the charge sheet and other connected documents. Taken on file against A.1, A.3 to A.5, A.7, A.8, A.11 to A.37 under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 326, 324, 114 read with 149 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(x) and 2(v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989. No prima facie case is made out against all accused under Section 354 I.P.C. No case is made out against A.2, A.6, A.9 and A.10 under any alleged section of law as such they are discharged from the Sections of law. Issue summons to A.3 to A.5, A.7, A.8, A.11 to A.37. Issue N.B.W to A.1 as he was not arrested so far.”

4. Since by the above order, four accused were not summoned and as against them an order of discharge was recorded and the same was assailed by the State as well as by the de facto complainant. State filed Criminal Revision Petition No.2 of 2011 and the de facto complainant preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.3 of 2011. Both were before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. After hearing both sides, by a common order both the criminal revision petitions were disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge. By its order it allowed both the revisions and set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate and a direction was given to proceed against A.2, A.6, A.9 and A.10 in accordance with law.

5. Assailing those orders only A.2 preferred Criminal Revision Case No.2306 of 2011 as against order in Criminal Revision Petition No.2 of 2011. The same A.2 filed Criminal Revision Case No.2309 of 2011 assailing the order in Criminal Revision Petition No.3 of 2011.

6. In both the revisions, State is one of the respondents and the de facto complainant is the other respondent.

7. Learned counsel on both sides submitted arguments.

8. The point that arises for consideration is: Whether the order of the learned Sessions Judge suffers from manifest errors of law or fact requiring interference in these revisio