HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.905 of 2011 ORDER:- The point raised in this criminal revision is whether Crime No.115/2010 and Crime No.114/2010 of Ponnuru Rural Police Station should be treated as same case as held by the Additional JFCM-cum-JCJ, Ponnuru or different crimes/cases as pleaded by the prosecution and which plea was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur. 2. By his order dated 19.09.2010 passed in the remand report dated 19.09.2010 submitted by the Inspector of Police, Ponnur Rural circle in Crime No.115/2010, the learned Magistrate held that both the above crimes should be treated as same case and he refused to remand the petitioners in the said case while he remanded the fifth accused Upputholla Edukondalu therein alone to judicial custody till 01.10.2010. Against that order the prosecution filed a revision i.e. Criminal Revision Petition No.145/2010. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 09.03.2011 disagreed with the learned Magistrate and held that both the cases are different and allowed the said revision. Questioning that order the present revision is again filed. It must be mentioned here that since the prosecution succeeded in its revision before the learned Sessions Judge, petitioners who are accused have come up again with this revision aggrieved by the said order. Thus though this revision is a second revision since it is not filed by the same party the same is entertained. 3. The three petitioners herein are shown as first, second and fourth accused (A-1, A-2 & A-4) in Crime No.115/2010 of Ponnur Rural Police Station. That FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115, 120-B r/w 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act in connection with the attempt of the said accused to commit murder of an unknown person at the behest of one Upputholla Edukondalu who is the de facto complainant in Crime No.114/2010 and the fifth accused in Crime No.115/2010 of the above police station. It should be noted here that though the name of the person to be murdered is not given he is described in the FIR in Crime No.115/2010 as a person who is a resident of 7th lane, A.T. Agraharam, Guntur. 4. It may then be noted that these three petitioners are also shown as A-1, A-2 and A-4 in the aforesaid Crime No.114/2010. That case has been registered on the report of the said Edukondalu which is to the effect that these three petitioners and others after searching for the person to be murdered in Crime No.115/2010 attacked the said Edukondalu in connection with their demand for money which Edukondalu agreed to pay them for committing the murder of the person concerned in Crime No.115/2010. Crime No.114/2010 was registered on 17.09.2010 at 20.00 hours and this Crime No.115/2010 was registered on 18.09.2010 at 1'O clock in the night i.e. after a gap of five hours from the time of registration of Crime No.114/2010. This Crime No.115/2010 is said to have been registered on what are called police proceedings or information recorded by the Inspector of Police, Ponnur Rural Police Station on a disclosure made by Edukondalu. 5. The petitioners were sent for judicial custody before the learned Magistrate in Crime No.114/2010 on 19.09.2010 but the exact time is not clear. He however remanded them to judicial custody in that crime/case. Thereafter on the same date itself i.e. 19.09.2010 at about 4.50 AM i.e. in the early hours these three petitioners and A-5 i.e. Upputholla Edukondalu were again sent before the learned Magistrate for remand. In the remand report dated 19.09.2010 pertaining to Crime No.115/2010 the learned Magistrate passed the following order which is not in dispute. “A1, A2, A4 and A5 produced Ponnur (R) P.S. along with Cr.No.115/2010 of Ponnur (R) P.S. The accused A1, A2 and A4 are already remanded in Cr.No.114/2010. I am having doubt how I again remand the accused in this crime also. However I am unable to clarify myself due to time i.e. the accused produced before me at 4-50 a.m. However I perused the records and found the accused re involved only one crime but not in different crimes in different places, time etc. So, the accused are liable only one punishment as per law. Hence, it is unlawful to remand A1, A2 and A4 in this crime also. Hence A1, A2 and A4 remand returned and A5 only remanded to J/C till 01.10.2010.” 6. As already mentioned supra in the revision filed against the above order the learned Sessions Judge disagreed with the learned Magistrate and set aside his above order and directed him to remand the petitioners subject to compliance with other formalities by the investigating officer. 7. In this revision the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the identity of the person sought to be murdered in Crime No.115/2010 is not mentioned and it is entirely a false case and in fact this crime and Crime No.114/2010 are one and the same and the learned Magistrate was right and his order has been wrongly set aside by the learned Sessions Judge. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor argued that both the cases are different and the learned Sessions Judge is right. 8. Now turning to the point, all the circumstances relating to both the above crimes and the basis for their registration have already been set out supra. To repeat, it may be noted that Crime No.114/2010 has been registered on the complaint/ report of Upputholla Edukondalu in connection with the attack on him by the petitioners the reasons for which attack have already been set out supra. It may be noted that this Edukondalu is also shown as one of the accused in Crime No.115/2010 which has been registered in connection with the conspiracy to murder a person already identified by Edukondalu and another though his identity is not mentioned in the papers relating to the said Crime No.115/2010 except stating that he is a resident of 7th late, A.T. Agraharam, Guntur. The incident in Crime No.114/2010 is said to have occurred when petitioners and other accused searched for that person and could not find him and meanwhile a dispute arose regarding payments and in that connection petitioners attacked Edukondalu. Thus though Edukondalu was an accused along with the petitioners in Crime No.115/2010 the attack on him and the offences committed against him can be said to be different and distinct offences constituting a different case and therefore the police registered it as Crime No.114/2010. Thus both Crime No.114/2010 and Crime No.115/2010 can be said to be different cases. 9. It should also be noted that in the remand report pertaining to Crime No.115/2010 Upputholla Edukondalu is also shown as A-5. The learned Magistrate in the remand order passed in the said remand report thought it fit to remand Edukondalu to judicial custody till 01.10.2010 notwithstanding the fact that he was the victim in Crime No.114/2010. This circumstance itself shows that the learned Magistrate has treated Crime No.115/2010 as a different case so far as Edukondalu is concerned and therefore he should have considered it as a different case even with respect to the petitioners. Thus the learned Sessions Judge rightly disagreed with the learned Magistrate. 10. It is true that Crime No.115/2010 has been registered without disclosing the identity of the person who was sought to be murdered and this may leave much to be desired on the part of the police. However the investigation is still reported to be pending. Hence the police may gather full information in the course of investigation about the identity of the victim in the said case also and the complicity of the accused therein. It goes without saying that petitioners can always take advantage of any shortcomings in the investigation in both the crimes in case they move for bail. Further the petitioners may also claim set off of the period in which they are in judicial custody in both the crimes/cases in case they are put on trial in both the cases if prosecution succeeds in the said trial. 11. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons the point is decided in favour of the prosecution and this revision is dismissed confirming the order of the learned Sessions Judge. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 28th April 2011 CVRK