S. Trimurthy vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 4179 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

             Tr. CRIMINAL PETITION No. 260 of 2017

O R D E R:

This Petition is filed by petitioner to withdraw Criminal

Appeal No. 342 of 2010 from the file of I Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge's Court at Nampally and transfer the same to this

Court, to be heard along with Crl. Revision Case No. 220 of 2010.

2. Petitioner is P.W.1 in C.C.No. 887 of 2004 on the file of

X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The

criminal prosecution was set into motion by his father against

respondents / accused for the offences under Sections 468, 471

and 465 read with Section 120-B IPC. However, by the time trial

commenced, he died. The learned Judge acquitted respondents by

the judgment dated 03.12.2009. Questioning the acquittal,

petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No. 220 of 2010 before this Court, while the

State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2010 on the file of I

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampallly at Hyderabad.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Raja Reddy Koneti

submits that in Criminal Revision Case, this Court summoned the

records from the trial Court, hence, due to non-availability of the

records, the learned Sessions Judge is unable to hear and dispose

of the Appeal. He further submits that the Appeal filed by the

State is not maintainable. He also states that as the Criminal

Revision Case and the Appeal arise out of the same order dated

03.12.2009, if both the matters are not heard by the same Court,

there is every likelihood that there may be conflicting judgments.

4. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri P.N.

Murthy, learned counsel for Respondent No.3.

5. Admittedly, the Criminal Revision Case preferred by

petitioner as well as the Criminal Appeal filed by the State in the

Court of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Secunderabad, arise out of the order dated 03.12.2009 in C.C.No.

887 of 2004. If the Appeal is transferred to this Court, no prejudice

will be caused to either the State or the private respondents.

Further, in Criminal Revision Case, this Court had already

summoned the record from the trial Court to proceed with the

hearing. At this stage, if both the matters are heard and decided by

different Courts, there is every likelihood of conflict of judgments.

6. In view of the same, in the interest of justice,

balancing the interests of both the parties, the Transfer Criminal

Petition is allowed and Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2010 is

withdrawn from the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge's Court at Nampally to be heard along with Criminal

Revision Case No. 220 of 2010 before this Court. No costs.

7. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any

shall stand closed.

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 07th December 2021

ksld