Varahagiri Jagannatha Swamy vs The State Of A.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 9000 AP

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1103 OF 2008

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed, under Sections

397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short,

'the Cr.P.C.), by the petitioner herein, who was the appellant in

Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2001, on the file of the Court of

Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for

short, 'the learned Principal Sessions Judge'), challenging the

judgment, dated 23.12.2005, where under the learned Sessions

Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner

against the order in S.T.C. No.45 of 2001, dated 14.03.2001, on

the file of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Prathipadu (for short, 'the trial Court').

2. The facts, leading to filing of this Criminal Revision Case,

are that the learned Magistrate booked S.T.C. No.45 of 2001

against the revision petitioner herein viz., V. Jagannadhaswamy,

who is an Advocate, alleging that on 14.03.2001 at about 12:30

PM he intentionally insulted and interrupted the Court, while the

Court was holding judicial proceedings in OS No.96 of 2000 in IA

No.325 of 2000. He caused nuisance and inconvenience by hurling

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1103/2008

hot words against the Presiding Officer by showing his hands

towards the Presiding Officer such as 'you do not know to control

the Court, do what I say'. Hence, the Court took cognizance of the

offence against him under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short, 'the IPC') following the procedure under Section

345(1) Cr.P.C. and after taking cognizance, afforded an

opportunity to why he should not be punished and thereupon

sentenced the revision petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in

default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

Challenging the same, accused in STC No.45 of 2001 filed

Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2001 and though it was registered in

the year 2001, it came to be dismissed on 23.12.2005 by the

learned Principal Sessions Judge. This is the order which is under

challenge in the instant Criminal Revision Case.

3. Now the point that arises for consideration is as to whether

the order in Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2001, dated 23.12.2005, is

sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any

grounds to interfere with such an order?

4. Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner,

would contend that the revision petitioner is a practicising

Advocate and he did not cause any nuisance to the Presiding

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1103/2008

Officer and that when he suffered with a conviction, he filed an

Appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge and if the

Principal Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction, Appeal ought not to

have been numbered and having kept the Appeal pending for a

period of four and half years, there was no justification on the part

of the learned Principal Sessions Judge to dismiss the Appeal and

if the learned Principal Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction, Appeal

could have been returned for presentation before the proper Court

as such he sought to remand the matter by setting aside the

impugned order so as to direct the learned Principal Sessions

Judge to return the Appeal for presentation before the proper

Court.

5. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing

learned Public Prosecutor, made a representation that the Court

may pass appropriate orders having regard to the facts and

circumstances.

6. Admittedly, it is a case where the Appeal was presented on

03.04.2001 and it was dismissed after kept pending for a period of

four and half years. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, relying

upon Section 351 of Cr.P.C. governing the Appeals from

Conviction under Sections 344, 345, 349 & 350, dismissed the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1103/2008

Appeal on the ground that the Appeal thereof has to be filed

ordinarily before a Court to which decrees or orders made before

the Court below are ordinarily appealable.

7. It is a fact that Section 351(1) Cr.P.C. provides that

notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure

Code, any person sentenced by any Court may appeal to the Court

to which decrees or orders made in such Court are ordinarily

appealable. It is to be noticed that when the learned Principal

Sessions Judge numbered the Appeal and kept it pending for more

than four and half years and ultimately when he found that the

Principal Sessions Court is not the proper forum, as rightly

contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, Appeal ought to

have been returned for presentation before the proper Court. The

learned Principal Sessions Judge made an observation that the

appellant is at liberty to file a fresh appeal before proper Court and

if necessary along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the

Appeal. It is to be noticed that according to the information placed

by the Registry, Junior Civil Judge Court at Prathipadu was

established on 04.09.1982 and Senior Civil Judge Court at

Peddapuram was established on 12.09.1981. So, the appellate

jurisdiction over the orders and decrees of Junior Civil Judge

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1103/2008

Court, Prathipadu was ordinarily to the Court of Senior Civil

Judge at Peddapuram, as on the date of judgment in STC No.45 of

2001. So, if that be the case, in my considered view, the Office of

learned Principal Sessions Judge East Godavari at Rajahmundry

ought to have taken an objection before numbering the Appeal,

requiring the appellant to file an Appeal in proper Court. Instead

of it, Appeal was numbered and was kept pending for more than

four and half years. Even otherwise, at the time of hearing the

Appeal, when the learned Principal Sessions Judge found that it

had no jurisdiction, in view of Section 351 of Cr.P.C., it had every

power to return the Appeal to the appellant for presentation before

proper Court. So, in view of Section 351 Cr.P.C., when the

Principal Sessions Judge was not having any power to entertain

the Appeal, it does not contemplate any further power to dismiss

the Appeal for want of jurisdiction. In my considered view, the

learned Principal Sessions Judge instead of returning the Appeal

went to dismiss the Appeal and that order is under challenge. As

per the information placed by the Registry, Additional District

Court at Peddapuram was established on 31.03.2018. Now the

situation is that in view of Section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil

Courts Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Civil Courts Act'), where a Court

of Senior Civil Judge is established in any district at a place

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1103/2008

remote from the seat of the District Court, the High Court, may,

direct that an Appeal from the decree or order of any Court (Court

of Junior Civil Judge) shall be preferred in the said Court of Senior

Civil Judge. Now the situation is that there is an Additional

District Court at Peddapuram, which was established on

31.03.2018. So, the appellate jurisdiction as of now over the

orders made by the Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu is the

Additional District Court at Peddapuram, in view of Section 17(3)

of the Civil Courts Act. However, now, it is not clear whether

Additional District Court at Peddapuram, which is also being

called as Additional Sessions Court, is empowered to take up

independent filing of the Criminal Appeals etc. Under the

circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable under law

and facts.

8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by

setting-aside the impugned order remanding the matter to the

learned Principal Sessions Court East Godavari at Rajahmundry

with a direction to return the Appeal specifying the Court in which

the Appeal is to be presented. It is further made clear that if the

learned Additional District Court at Peddapuram is not having

independent jurisdiction to entertain the Criminal Appeals, it is

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1103/2008

open to the Principal Sessions Judge to renumber the Appeal or

with the same number makeover to the Additional District Court

at Peddapuram for disposal in accordance with law.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date: 28.11.2022 DSH