THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) with a prayer to quash the direction of the trial Court in Crl.M.P.SR.No.598 f 2025 in C.C.No.03 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

[

2. Heard Mr.V.V.Ramana, learned counsel for petitioner-accused officer, Mr.K.Rajashekar, learned counsel representing Mr.T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-ACB.

3. The petitioner is Accused Officer No.1 for the charges under Sections 7, 8,13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 12 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the proceedings, the prosecution has filed Crl.M.P.No.5 of 2025 to receive certain documents and the learned trial Court allowed the petition by order dated 03.03.2025. Challenging the order, the petitioner preferred revision vide Crl.R.C.No.256 of 2025 on the file of this Court and the same is pending. In the meantime, the petitioner filed the impugned petition under Section 309 of Cr.P.C seeking adjournment of trial proceedings, pending the revision case. The trial Court Vide order dated 04.04.2025 by observing that it has no jurisdiction to adjourn or suspend further proceedings till the disposal of the criminal revision and the petitioner would be at liberty to file stay petition in the revision petition, returned the petition.

5. The sole grievance of petitioner is that though the provision under Section 309 of Cr.P.C grants jurisdiction to postpone or adjourn the proceedings by the concerned Court, without even numbering the petition muchless exercising the jurisdiction simply returned the petition which is improper and unsustainable.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-ACB would submit that the prayer of the petition cannot be considered under Section 309 of Cr.P.C, hence, returning the petition was proper. He further pleads that as the petition itself is not numbered and returned, the course open for the petitioner would be resubmission with explanation and the Court upon considering the merits may pass appropriate order. Thus, no intervention is required in this matter.

7. Have perused the materials on record.

8. The petition is filed under Section 309 of Cr.P.C and the same has been returned by the Court without any endorsement seeking explanation or resubmission. Section 309 of Cr.P.C contemplates the power of the Court to postpone or adjourn the proceedings. Though there is direction that the trial proceedings are to be continued from day to day, the jurisdiction is reserved to the Court concerned to adjourn the same for the reasons to be recorded. That being the position, declaring to number the petition recording the observations as to the jurisdiction under the referred provision would be ex-facie improper as the Court by misconceiving jurisdiction made an endeavour to consider the merit of the petition even without numbering it. In the given circumstance, the proper course should be numbering the petition and upon hearing the submissions passing an appropriate order. For that reason, this Court finds that the order of returning the petition is unsustainable.

9. Thus the impugned endorsement “returned” and the petition vide Crl.M.P (SR).No.598 of 2025 in C.C.No.03 of 2011 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to resubmit the returned petition before the Court concerned within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, whereupon, the Court is directed to number the petition and after hearing to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

10. With this observation, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI Date: 23.04.2025 mmr THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI DATE: 23.04.2025

mmr