THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.280 of 2010 and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1595 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Whether a criminal appeal preferred by accused questioning their convictions and sentences recorded by a JFCM court in a police case and pending in an Additional Sessions Court should be transferred to this court for being disposed of along with criminal revision case filed by the de facto complainant for enhancement of sentences and pending in this court is the point which arises in this transfer petition. 2. Sri Tadi Nageswara Rao the learned counsel for the petitioner in this transfer petition who is also the petitioner in the revision case, in the alternative, requested that in case the above point is decided against the petitioner, his criminal revision case may be made over to the appellate court dealing with the above criminal appeal so that both may be disposed of together by that court. Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 (accused) herein and appellants in the above criminal appeal expressed no objection for this course. This is the alternative point. 3. The above points arise in the following circumstances. The petitioner herein is the de facto complainant in the police case C.C.No.701 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram (for short JFCM). Respondents 2 and 3 herein are A-1 and A-2 in the said case. The learned JFCM after a contest by his judgment dated 17.03.2010 convicted respondents 2 and 3 for offences under Section 325 IPC, and Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and also Section 341 IPC and imposed substantive sentences of imprisonment and as well as fine with default clause prison sentences. The said details are found in the judgment of the JFCM and it is not necessary to repeat them here. Thereafter respondents 2 and 3 preferred Crl.A.No.43 of 2010 (criminal appeal) questioning the above judgment of the learned JFCM and it is represented by both sides that the said appeal is pending in the Family Court-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram (appellate court). The de facto complainant in his turn filed the revision case i.e. Crl.R.C.No.1595 of 2010 in this court pleading for enhancement of sentences awarded to respondents 2 and 3 by the JFCM. 4. The plea of the petitioner is that if the revision case preferred by him in this court and the criminal appeal preferred by respondents 2 and 3 are disposed of separately by different courts (i.e. this court and the aforesaid appellate court) there is a likelihood of conflict of judgments and that even otherwise ends of justice require that both the matters should be heard together and since this is a superior court in which criminal revision case is pending, the criminal appeal should be withdrawn from the appellate court so that this court can hear both the matters together and dispose of the same to avoid conflict of judgments. 5. After hearing both counsel and at their request, the revision case was directed to be listed along with this petition for hearing. 6. Now coming to the point, it may be noted that the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C introduced by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, does not enable a victim to prefer an appeal seeking enhancement of sentence though it gives him other remedies. It is seen that it is for this reason the petitioner who is the de facto complainant has preferred the revision case in this court for enhancement of sentences. Now under Section 397 Cr.P.C this court and as well as the Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction in entertaining revisions. However the de facto complainant i.e. the petitioner herein has preferred the revision for enhancement of sentences in this court which is maintainable though he could have as well filed it in the Sessions Court at Vizianagaram. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 in this petition and who are also respondents in the revision case pointed out that if criminal appeal is transferred to this court they would lose a valuable right of revision to this court in case the judgment of the appellate court goes against them and therefore the criminal appeal should be allowed to be disposed of by the appellate court itself. 7. I am of the opinion that there is sufficient force in this contention of the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. As pointed out by him if the criminal appeal is transferred to this court they will be losing their remedy of revision to this court if the appellate court decides the criminal appeal against them. Hence in the above circumstances it will not be proper for this court to withdraw the criminal appeal in question to this court for being disposed of along with revision case. In view of this, it follows that the request for transfer of criminal appeal to this court should not be entertained. 8. It should however, as already stated supra, be noted the learned counsel for the petitioner requested that in the alternative the petitioner’s criminal revision should be made over to the appellate court to be disposed of along with the criminal appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents also agreed for this course. However this relief is not sought for in this petition. The question now is whether this court can grant such a relief on the consent of the counsel though it is not claimed in the petition. 9. Regarding the power of this court to grant the above relief on the consent of the counsel, I am of the opinion that this court can be said to have such power under Section 482 Cr.P.C which gives inherent power to this court to pass necessary orders to secure the ends of justice. The said provision starts with a non- obstante clause and says that notwithstanding anything contained in the code this court can exercise its inherent power to secure the ends of justice also. Further having regard to the consent given by both parties for granting that relief, I am of the opinion that this court can grant the same when it is otherwise justified. The following reasons in my opinion justify the grant of such a relief. 10. It may be noted that while dealing with the controversy relating to enhancement of sentences even in a revision, the court may have to go into the legality of the order impugned in the revision and it may also have to consider the evidence and the gravity of the injuries in a case like this. It may also be noted that even in an appeal from conviction the whole matter will be at large before the appellate court and it may also enhance the sentence after confirming the convictions but giving due opportunity to the accused. This power of the appellate court is to be found in Section 386 of the Cr.P.C. 11. As already stated supra this court and a Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain revisions under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Thus it follows that a Sessions Court can also deal with a revision for enhancement of sentence. This apart the party aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Court in the revision or appeal can have a further remedy before this court and it would also tend to the convenience of both parties if both the matters are dealt with by the aforesaid appellate court. In view of this the effect of findings of this court in the revision over the findings recorded in criminal appeal if both are separately disposed of is not gone into and it is also not necessary to go into the same. 12. In the above circumstances it follows that ends of justice would be served if the revision case is made over to the appellate court so that it can dispose of both the revision case as well as the criminal appeal in question together. 13. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons while rejecting the request for transfer of the criminal appeal to this court, the Criminal Revision Case No.1595 of 2010 is ordered to be transferred to the appellate court i.e. Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, for being disposed of along with Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2010 on its file. The Registry shall despatch the record in the revision case to the appellate court. The said court shall take up both the matters after due notice to both sides. This matter is accordingly disposed of. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 19th July 2011 CVRK