IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4000 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CC.598/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------- VIJAYAKUMAR S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR.,AJITHALAYAM, NAGARIPURAM P.O. MANNOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3/STATE: --------------- 1. HARIDASAN S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, UPPILAMPARA HOUSE CHERAYA, KONGAD, PALAKKAD., 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. BABURAJ S/O.C.T.KOCHUNNI GUPTHAN BABU NIVAS, PUNCHAPADOM P.O.,KADAMPAZHIPURAM PALAKKAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.RAVEENDRA BABU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRRP4000/2008 OR DER ON CRL.M.A.12189 OF 2008 IN CRRP 4000 OF 2008 DISMISSED 9.12.2008 SD/- M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. Okb/- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 4000 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C. 598 of 2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad. This revision is filed challenging the order passed by Sessions Judge, Palakkad in C.M.P.3260/2008. The accused were convicted for the offences under section 323 and 427 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Both the accused challenged the appeal by filing two separate appeals. Crl. Appeal 435/2005 was filed by the second accused and Crl. Appeal 459/2005 by the first accused. When Crl.Appeal 435/2005 is pending before Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-II, Crl. Appeal 459/2005 is pending before Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I. C.M.P.432/2008 is filed by first accused, the appellant in Crl. Appeal 459/2005 to transfer Crl. Appeal 435/2005 to Sessions Court,( Adhoc-I) so that both the appeals could be heard together. Learned Sessions Judge as per order dated 13.8.2008 allowed the application and transferred Crl. Appeal 435/200/5 to CRRP4000/08 2 Sessions Court, Adhoc-I, which is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that revision petitioner was not given notice and first respondent, the appellant in Crl. Appeal 459/2005 has no right to seek transfer of Cr. Appeal 435/2005 and if at all the application should have been filed by the second accused, who is the appellant in Crl. Appeal 435/2005 and therefore the order is not sustainable. Learned counsel argued that in any case the order for transfer without granting opportunity to the revision petitioner to oppose the application is not sustainable. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. When there are two appeals against one judgment convicting two accused, it cannot be disputed that both the appeals are to be heard by one and the same Court. It is necessary to avoid conflicting decisions. When Crl.Appeal 459/2005 is pending before Adhoc-I and Crl. Appeal 435/2005 is pending before Adhoc-II as per the order, learned Sessions Judge had only CRRP4000/08 3 transferred Crl.Appeal 435/2005 to the other Court so that both the appeals could be heard by the same Court. I find no reason to interfere. Revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-