IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1410 of 2010 DATE:31.08.2010 Between: E.P.Jayarajan …… Petitioner And: Inspector of Police, CBCID, Special Team, Hyderabad Rep. by its P.P, A.P. High Court, Hyderabad. …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1410 of 2010 ORDER : The petitioner/defacto-complainant seeks to file this revision petition against order dated 12.07.2010 passed by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole in Crl.M.P.No.14 of 2010 in S.C. No.383 of 1998 dismissing the petition filed by the defacto-complainant under Section 193 Cr.P.C refusing to take cognizance of the case for the offences against three accused persons named in the charge sheet and who were not sent for trial. Those three persons named in the charge sheet are T.P.Rajeevan, Biji and K.Sudhakaran. Out of them, T.P.Rajeevan is shown to be absconding; and Biju’s actual name and address are not known; and K.Sudhakaran is stated to be Member of Legislative Assembly in Kerala State. 2) An attempt on life of the petitioner/defacto-complainant took place on 12.04.1995 in between Bapatla and Chirala railway stations when he was travelling in Rajadhani express (train No.2432). On report given by the petitioner railway police, Chirala registered case in Crime No.14 of 1995 on the same day. Subsequently investigation of the case was taken by Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D) of this State and filed charge sheet before the Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for Railways, Nellore and after committal of the case the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge took up trial of the case. In the charge sheet 137 witnesses were cited to be examined during trial, it is stated that as on today, more than 30 witnesses were examined by the lower Court apart from giving up of some other witnesses out of the list. 3) In the sessions case two persons are facing trial before the lower Court. They are Sasi and K.Dinesh. Previously attempts were made by the petitioner for impleading T.P.Rajeevan, Biju and K.Sudhakaran as accused persons in the sessions case on the ground that investigation made by C.I.D reveal their conspiracy for the offence and that no more investigation by C.I.D is required or contemplated to be made. The petitioner was unsuccessful in his attempts made under Section 319 Cr.P.C even upto the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the petitioner has shifted his legal base for the same prayer from Section 319 Cr.P.C to Section 193 Cr.P.C. The lower Court did not find favour with the contentions put forward on behalf of the petitioner and dismissed the petition filed under Section 193 Cr.P.C. It made the petitioner to land in this Court with this revision petition. 4) Placing reliance on Ranjit Singh V. State of Punjab[1] of the Supreme Court, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that since the case was not committed in so far as T.R.Rajeevan, Biju and K.Sudhakaran, this Court exercising its inherent powers or revisional powers can direct the committing Magistrate to rectify the committal order by issuing process to such left out accused. Relying on Dharam Pal V. State of Haryana[2] of the Supreme Court, it is further contended that the Sessions Court has power to take cognizance of offences against persons not charge sheeted, whose complicity in the crime comes to light from material available on record. In Dharam Pal, the Supreme Court did not agree with the view expressed in Ranjit Singh and directed the matter to be placed the Honourable Chief Justice for placing the same before a Larger Bench of more than three Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court. 5) I am of the opinion that the said controversy relating to the question whether the Magistrate has to take cognizance or whether the Sessions Court also has got power to take cognizance as per Section 193 Cr.P.C, may not be relevant for the purpose of decision in the case on hand, having regard to facts of this case. 6) In the charge sheet filed by C.I.D in this case, in columns 2 and 3, it was stated that Sasi and K.Dinesh are the accused persons sent up for trial and that T.P.Rajeevan, Biju and K.Sudhakaran are not sent for trial. It is further stated in the charge sheet that investigation against the associates of the accused is still in progress and a separate requisition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C was being filed requesting the Court to permit the prosecution to continue further investigation with reference to the criminal conspiracy hatched in pursuance of which this offence was committed by A-1 and A-2. It is alleged in the charge sheet that A-1 and A-2 along with associates entered into criminal conspiracy to liquidate C.P.M leaders and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy A-1 and A-2 were handed over arms and ammunitions by their associates and that A-1 Sasi opened fire with his revolver while the other accused armed with weapons stood near by to provide cover. On those allegations, the charge sheet was filed for offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 307 I.P.C and Sections 25(1)(b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. Even though the offence took place in the year 1995 and the charge sheet was filed by C.I.D in the same year, till now C.I.D did not file any additional final report/additional charge sheet. When this Court enquired the public prosecutor on that aspect, the public prosecutor took time and obtained instructions from C.I.D and stated that even though it was stated in the charge sheet that requisition was being filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C for continuation of further investigation with reference to the criminal conspiracy, C.I.D did not file any such requisition before the Magistrate and did not obtain any orders granting permission for further investigation. The public prosecutor categorically stated that as on today, no further investigation is pending in this crime with C.I.D. 7) At this stage, it may be noted that in the year 1997, the petitioner/defacto-complainant filed a criminal miscellaneous petition in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thiruvananthapuram-III against 7 persons including Sudhakaran, Rajeevan, Sasi (A-1), P.K.Dinesan(A-2) and others under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for direction to the police to investigate into the case according to law. After investigation, the Assistant Commissioner of Police Sugathan of Thiruvananthapuram filed charge sheet for offence punishable under Section 120-B I.P.C against Sudhakaran, M.V.Raghavan, Rajeevan, Sasi and P.K.Dineshan. The said charge sheet relates to conspiracy among the above named persons to commit this offence against the petitioner. The said criminal case is stated to be pending in Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated by the petitioner’s counsel that the Kerala High Court granted stay of further proceedings in that case and that the matter is now pending in the High Court of Kerala. 8) Since the petitioner is pursuing his remedies in Kerala Courts and since the case relating to criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B I.P.C is pending in Thiruvananthapuram Court against Rajeevan and Sudhakaran after it was taken cognizance by the Magistrate at Thiruvananthapuram, the question of taking cognizance of the same criminal conspiracy against the same persons in Sessions Case No.383 of 1998 pending before the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole invoking Section 193 Cr.P.C will not arise at all. Rajeevan and Sudhakaran cannot be expected to face trial in two Courts, one at Thiruvananthapuram of Kerala State and the other at Ongole of Andhra Pradesh State for the same offence relating to the same transaction. They cannot be vexed twice by way of two simultaneous trials in two different Courts for the same offence. Thus, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the opinion that having taken steps in Thiruvananthapuram Court against Rajeevan and Sudhakaran for offence punishable under Section 120-B I.P.C, now again it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that the Assistant Sessions Judge at Ongole has to take cognizance of the same offence against the same persons in Sessions Case No.383 of 1998. This Court finds that the petition filed in the lower Court as well as this revision petition lacks merits as well as bonafides. 9) Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 19, 2010 KSH [1] AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 3148 [2] (2004)13 Supreme Court Cases 9