THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) assailing the order dated 21.03.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2025 in Crl.M.P.No.01 of 2025 in Tr.Crl.M.P.No.09 of 2024 in CC No.851 of 2023, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard Mr.B.Subash, learned counsel representing Ms.Bonala Saramma, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The petitioner is the victim and the Calendar Case is filed against the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 427, 504, 506 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the file of the XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate –cum- Principle Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam.

4. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that pending Calendar Case proceedings, the petitioner herein has filed Tr.Crl.M.P.No.09 of 2024 seeking transfer of CC No.851 of 2023 from XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District to any other Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District on the ground that the Presiding Officer does not know Telugu. That petition was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District vide order dated 03.12.2024. Whereafter the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.01 of 2025 with a prayer to review the order in Tr.Crl.M.P.No.09 of 2024. Wherein, Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2025 filed with a prayer to summon any of four statements of witnesses recorded by the trial Court in Telugu language. The impugned order came to be passed by dismissing that petition. Thus the present petition with a prayer to set aside that order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the trial Court is against the settled legal position. In the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), dated 30.01.2023, it has been held that the depositions have to be recorded in the language of the witnesses and if at all the witnesses gives evidence in which language, it has to be taken in that language. Citing these observations pleaded that the Presiding Officer cannot record the statements of witnesses with the help of prosecutor and the counsel as observed in the order in Tr.Crl.M.P No.09 of 2024. Thus, dismissal of the petition by the Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar is untenable, thus prayed for setting aside the order.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the Tr.Crl.M.P No.09 of 2024 was dismissed as such the maintainability of the Interlocutory Application has not been considered and the Court has recorded that the petition and prayer would amount to review of its own order. Hence, the order is justified.

7. I have perused the materials on record.

8. It is not in dispute that the Tr.Crl.M.P.No.09 of 2024 was dismissed and as per the pleadings, the review petition vide Crl.M.P.No.01 of 2025 has been filed and it is pending. In the present petition the petitioner has sought for the evidence recorded by the Court in Telugu. Firstly, the request is not pertaining to the relevant case on hand. Secondly, there is no explanation as to how the deposition will be helpful, especially in the light of settled practice that the statements of witnesses in vernacular language would be translated and recorded in the Court language and this process would be in the physical pressure of the accused and his counsel. The Court having considered the submissions observed that summoning the depositions recorded in Telugu language is an effort of rankling. Further it has been noted that the new material when if available can be considered but agitating on the self same ground raised in the transfer petition, which was considered and dismissed would be asking for recording the earlier order. For the aforenoted circumstances, this Court finds no impropriety or il