The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri A.Prabhakar Rao. Counsel for the Respondene The Public Prosecutor. The Court made the following: ORDER /r-' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TET ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DI: /l EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2867 OF ., r016 DATE:31-12-2025 Between: Chinna Bashappa and another And .. Petitioners The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Respondent ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed agglr eved by the judgment, dated 05.10.2016, passed in Crl.A.No.37 rf 2015 by the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-Vll Additiort; Ll District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned c: lnsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, lear red Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 2 ETD,J Crl.R.C.No.2867 of 2016

3. The case of the prosecutiofl is that on 24.04.2012, the de facto complainant lodged a report stating that on 23.04.2012 at about 06:00 PM, while the husband of the de facfo complainant, her father-in-raw and brother-inJaw were marking in their own rand, the adjacent plot owners i.e., the accused, demanded them to leave two feet width of place and when they refused to do so, all the accused beat her husband, father-in_law and brother_in_law with sticks and caused bleeding injuries on the head and other parts of the body. Based on the said report, the Sub_lnspector of Police had registered a case in Crime No.3S of 2012, under Sections 147 and 324 read with 34 l.p.C. against the accused. During the course of investigation, the police have recorded the statement of the father-in-raw of the de facto comprainant by name Vollapuram Ramireddy, who received severe head injury, and altered the Section of Law from Sections 147 and 324 readwith 34 l-P.C. to Sections 148 and 307 read with 149 l.p.C. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet, upon which the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet, has taken cognizance of the case and numbered the same as PRC.No.44 of 2012 and thereafter, committed the case to the Court of Session. The learned principal Sessions Judge, ttlahabubnagar, has registered the same as S.C.No.577 of 2012 'i 3 ETD,J Cr R.C.No.2867 of20l6 and made over the same to the learned Assistant S: ;sions Judge, Narayanpet, who after a full-fledged trial has found tlr ) accused not guilty of the offences under Sections 148 and 307 ead with 149 LP.C. and acquitted them of the said offences, lowever, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found accused l,l )s.1, 3 and 4 guilty of the offence under Section 324 l.P.C. art accordingly, convicted them of the said offence and sentenced I lem to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) years e;t )h and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment ol simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) mc fine to suffer .rths. Thus, accused Nos.2 and 5 are acquitted. Aggrieved I y the same, accused Nos.'l , 3 and 4 preferred Crl.A.No.37 of 2rl 15 before the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-Vll Addition;l District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. The appellale Court vrde impugned judgment, dated 05.'10.2016, remanded he matter to the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present re rision case is flled by accused Nos.2 and 5.

4. The operative portion of the impugned jucl ment, dated

05. 1 0.2016, is extracted hereunder for the sake of ref, ,rence: "20. ln the result , the Judgment of trie Court passed on 07-04-2015 in S.C.No.577 ol 2012 cc rvicting the accused/appellants herein for the offence under T 4 ETD,J Crl-R.C.No.2867 of 20t 6 Sec.324 lpC acquitting of tfe other accused nos.2 aM 5 having found them not guilty of the offences under Secs. 148, 307 rlw 149 lpC is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to trial court for simultaneous disposal along with C.C.No.3S of 20j3 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet on its committal to the court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet uninfluenced with any of the observations and findings given in Judgment dated 07-04_2015 and Judgment of this court on re-appreciation of the evidence on record afresh after recording the evidence in C.C.No.3S of 2013. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet is directed to commit the case invoking sec.323 Cr.p.C. or to get it transferred to the court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet with permission of the Hon'ble Diskict and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. All the accused including accused nos.2 and 5 are directed to appear before the trial court i.e., Assistant Sessions Court, Narayan pel on 07_11_2016. lf Accused nos.2 and 5 fail to appear before the trial court the Assistant Sessions Court, Narayanpet, is at liberty to secure their presence on issuing process. This appeal is disposed of accordingly."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein are accused Nos.2 and 5, who were acquitted by the trial Court of the offences under Sections 324, 14g and 307 read with 149 l.p.C, while accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were convicted of the offence under Section 324 l.p.C. The accused Nos.1, 3 and I t' 5 DTD,J ( r F..C.No.2867 of 2016 4 have preferred Crl.A.No.37 o[ 2015 before the etl ,pellate court and the appellate Court has remanded the matter kt the trial Court to dispose of the same along with C.C.No.35 of 2C' 3 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class Narayanpet, which is a cross case, by following the judgt Honourable Apex Court in Nathi Lal v. State of U.P rents of the I and Sudhir v. State of Madhya Pradesh2. He further submitte,j that by virtue of the impugned judgment, the case of the petit < ners-accused Nos.2 and 5 also got remanded to the trial Court for :onducting re- trial. The impugned judgment is against the purport , ,l Section 300 Cr.P.C. and that the petitioners would be subjer; ed to double jeopardy. Once the petitioners have faced full-fle, ged trial and were acquitted, subjecting them to another rounc of trial is not justified. He, therefore, prayed to set aside I re impugned judgment, dated 05.10.2016, in respect of the petitic,r ers herein.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has lz irly conceded that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 5 were acquii ed by the trial Court and therefore, they cannot be subjected to re trial, by virtue of Section 300 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that tht question that arises for consideration before this Court is wheth< r the order of | 1998 Supp. SCC 145 ' etn z0Ol Supreme Court 826 i I I I 6 ETD.J Crl.R.C.No.2867 of 20t6 remand passed by the appellate court is sustainable as against accused Nos.2 and 5

7. Perused the record 8' The rearned speciar sessions Judge has remanded the matter on the ground that there are two cases registered out of the same incident and that both the cases have to be clisposed of simultaneously. ln connection with the same incident, a complaint was lodged by the accused and the porice have registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2012 of Makthal police Station against pWs.2, 3 and 5 and the same was taken cognizance of and numbered as C.C.No.35 of 2013 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet. The present case i.e., S.C.No.577 of 2O1Z arose out of Crime No.35 of 2012 of Makthal police Station. Thus, there was a case and a counter case. The trial Court has proceeded with the trial in one case i.e., S.C.No.577 of 2012, white the other case i.e., C.C.No.35 of 2013 is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet.

9. ln Sudhir's case (supra 2), the Honourable Apex Court has discussed as to the implementation of the scheme in a situation where one of the two cases relating to the same incident is charge_ I / /, ETD,J Ctl r..C.No.2867 of 2016 sheeted or complained of, involving offences exclus \ ely triable by 7 the Court of Sessions, while in the other case none o the offences are triable by the Sessions Court, the Magistrate be.r re whom the former case reaches has to commit the case to the Sr ssions court and once the case is committed to the Sessions Cot 1, thereafter, it is governed by the provisions in Chapter XVlll of O F.C. lt was held that the Magistrate has the power to commit tr case to the Court of Sessions even though none of the offence therein are exclusively triable by the sessions court. The purpc,r is that both the cases should be tried by the Sessions Court simrl aneously. lt was fu(her held that during an inquiry into an offer :e or a trial before a Magistrate, if it appears to him at any r tage of the proceedings before signing judgment that the case i ; one which ought to be tried by the court of sessions, he sha[ cor mit it to that Court under the provisions of the Cr.p.C. and ttrr reupon the provisions of Chapter XVlll shall apply to the corr mitment so made.

10. ln Nathi Lal's case (supra 1), the Honourable, AO", "orn held that the Sessions Court can conduct trial in bct I the cases one after the other and shall reserve the judgment of t ,e first case till the trial in the second case is completed an(i pronounce l I !I I 8 ETD,J Crl.RC.No.2867 of 2016 judgment in both the cases simultaneously by delivering two separate judgments and while deciding each of the case, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that case. The evidence recorded in cross case cannot be looked into. 11' By rerying on the said decisions, the appeflate court has held that the trial Court has to dispose of S.C.No.S77 of 2012 along with c.c.No.3s ot 2oi3 pending on the fire of rearned Judiciar Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet, and that the judgments in both the cases are to be delivered simultaneously, and thus, remanded the case to the trial Court vide impugned judgment, dated 05.'10.20,16. By virtue of the said judgment of the appellate Court the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 5, who are acquitted by the trial Court, also have to face the trial for the second time, which is not permissible as per Section 300 Cr.p.C

12. Section 300 Cr.p.C reference: is extracted hereunder for the sake of "300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.-(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquiftal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for 9 EI'D.J I{.C.No.2867 ol20l6 any other offence for which a different charge fror the one made against him might have been made urr ler sub- section (1) of Section 221, or fior which he might lrr ve been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof. (2) A person acquitted or convicted of any off 3 tce may be afteruvards tried, with the consent of tl : State Government, for any distinct offence for which a ;eparate charge might have been made against him at tlr I forrner trial under sub-section (1) of Section 220. (3) A person convicted of any offence consti uted by any act causing consequences which, together I th such act, constituted a different offence from that of I hich he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for sr-:h las! mentioned offence, if the consequences i ed not happened, or were not known to the Court o have happened, at the time when he was convicted. (4) A person acquitted or convicted of an5, offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstandil I such acquiftal or conviction, be subsequently charged v ith, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the s,r ne acts which he may have committed if the Court by n rich he was first tried was not competent to try the offe,r ce with which he is subsequenfly charged. (5) A person discharged under Section 259 sh,r not be tried again for the same offence except with the cr> tsent of the Court by which he was discharged or of ar / other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordir lte. l0 ETD.J Crl.R.C.No.2867 of 20t6 (6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1g97 (10 of 1897) or of Section 1gB of this Code.,,

13. A bare perusal of the above Section reveals that no person shall be prosecuted or punished twice for the same offence. Thus, in the present case, since the petitioners_accused Nos.2 and 5 have already faced trial, remanding the case for another round of trial in respect of the petitioners herein is not just and proper. Therefore, the impugned judgment as against the petitioners herein is bad in the eye of law.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the judgment, dated 05.10.2016, passed in Crl.A.No.37 of 20.15 by the learned speciar sessions Judge-cum-Vil Additionar District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, is set aside as against the petitioners herein-accused Nos.2 and S. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. sdl- P. cH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR / /TRUECOPY/ / SECTIONOFFICER To, Mahabubnagar 1 JE special sessions Judge-cum-vll Additionar Dishict & sessions ]udge, 2. The Assistant Sessions Judge at Narayanpet. 3. One CC to Sri A.Prabhakai Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 4. one CC to the Public prosecutor, Hlgh Couit Build-ings, Hyderabad. [opuc] 5. Two CD Copies. T_D " . !l ;i:i- - u,,Sda-il v'(' 3o t o o 1 rrli itili' c\ * r)- * AJC HIGHCOURT DATED:3L/12/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.2867 of 2076 Allowing ttre Criminal Revision case rC/\ _-> a<f rf>e