Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 4179
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
Venkatrayan
Versus
State by the Sub Inspector of Police, Namakkal District
Crl. O.P. No. 30606 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided on: 20-11-2014
For the Petitioner:V.V. Sairam, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M. Maharaja, APP.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Sections 341 and 324 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 209 – Appeal against conviction - Order of acquittal – Jurisdiction - On a first information lodged by petitioner - respondent herein registered a case in Crime and filed final report before Judicial Magistrate for alleged offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC - One are accused in said case - On completing investigation Sub Inspector of Police filed a final report before Judicial Magistrate who in turn took cognizance of offences under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC - On information a case in Crime was registered for alleged offences punishable under Sections 307 r/w 34 and 506(ii) of IPC against petitioner herein and one - On completing investigation respondent filed final report in said case against petitioner and case was later on committed to Court of Session - Sessions Judge took cognizance and thereafter made over same to Assistant Sessions Judge for trial – Held, No Appeal to lie unless otherwise provided - No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for time being in force - Provided that victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by Court acquitting accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation and such appeal shall lie to Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against order of conviction of such court - In instant case as against order of acquittal petitioner herein who is victim of crime ought to have filed an appeal to court of session where criminal appeal is already pending - But unfortunately petitioner has come up with present petition for withdrawal of appeal from file of Sessions Judge to file of this court so as to be tried - In court considered opinion itself is not maintainable as remedy for petitioner is to file only a criminal appeal but however under Section 401(5) of Criminal Procedure Code petitioner can approach this court for converting said revision as an appeal and to remit same to file of Sessions Judge so as to be tried along with appeal in Criminal Appeal - Thus in court considered opinion it is not at all possible for this court to withdraw appeal in Criminal Appeal from file of Sessions Jude as prayed for - Criminal original petition is dismissed
1. The petitioner has come up with this original petition seeking to withdraw the appeal in Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal Sessions Division, to this court so as to be heard along with Crl.R.C.No.1030 of 2014 pending on the file of this court.
2. The facts of the case in brief would be as follows:-
On a first information lodged by the petitioner - Venkatrayann, the respondent herein registered a case in Crime No.161 of 2012 and filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC. One Mr.Ganapathy Gounder and Rathinam are the accused in the said case. On completing the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Mallasumudhram Police Station, filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, who in turn, took cognizance of offences under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC in C.C.No.318 of 2012.
3. On the information of Mr.Ganapathy Gounder, a case in Crime No.162 of 2012 was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 307 r/w 34 and 506(ii) of IPC against the petitioner herein and one Mr.Suresh. On completing the investigation, the respondent filed the final report in the said case against the petitioner and Suresh and the case was, later on, committed to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, Namakkal, took cognizance and thereafter, made over the same to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruchengode, for trial in S.C.No.71 of 2013.
4. From the records it is seen that during the pendency of the case in S.C.No.71 of 2013 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruchengode, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, by his proceedings in D.No.475/TROP/2014 dated 03.02.2014 had withdrawn and transferred the case in C.C.No.318 of 2012 from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, to the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruchengode, for being tried along with the case in S.C.No.71 of 2013. As per the said order passed on the administrative side by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, transmitted the records in C.C.No.318 of 2012 to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruchengode, for simultaneous trial. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge renumbered the case as C.C.No.01 of 2014.
5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruchengode, accordingly, tried both the cases simultaneously and by judgment dated 30.07.2014 convicted the petitioner and Suresh under Section 307 r/w 34 and 506(ii) of IPC in S.C.No.71 of 2013. As against the said conviction and the sentence, Mr.Venkatrayan, the petitioner herein and Mr.Suresh have filed an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal in Crl.A.No.55 of 2014 and the same is pending.
6. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruchengode, on the same day, i.e., on 30.07.2013, acquitted the accused Ganapathy Gounder and Rathinam in C.C.No.01 of 2014. Challenging the said order of acquittal, the petitioner, who is the de facto complainant in the case, has filed a revision before this court and the same is now pending in Crl.R.C.No.1030 of 2014.
7. On the ground that these cases are cases in counter, the petitioner has come up with this original petition seeking to withdraw the case in Crl.A.No.55 of 2014 from the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, to the file of this court so as to be tried along with Crl.R.C.No.1030 of 2014.
8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully.
9.0. During the course of the present proceedings, I have noticed a number of irregularities / illegalities committed at various stages. I wish to deal with the same one after the other.
9.1. As I have already noticed, the offences involved
