THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1814 of 2010 Date:02nd December, 2010 Between: Yelugulu Sivaprasada Rao …Petitioner and 1. Dadi Rama Krishna & Anr. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1814 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the return endorsement dated 27.09.2010 made on the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Vizianagaram. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, against the 1st respondent herein making certain accusations punishable under Section 193 IPC. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, considered the complaint averments and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not the competent person to file the complaint and thereby dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Relevant portion of the order passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, reads as hereunder: “Here in this case also when the complainant came to know about the misrepresentation of accused in CC 177/2008 before the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram, he has to bring the same to the notice of the Special Judicial Magistrate of Iclass (Excise), Vizianagaram, and submit the entire record before the same court and in turn if the Presiding Officer came to a conclusion that the accused misrepresented in that case, the court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram has to file a complaint but not complainant in this case. Hence, the above authority very much applicable in this case. As per the above decision, this court cannot take cognizance against the accused on the complaint filed by the defacto complainant in CC 177/2008 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram. In the result, the complaint is dismissed u/s. 203 Cr.P.C.” The petitioner did not choose to challenge the order passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram and instead he filed a fresh complaint before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Vizianagaram, making the selfsame allegations. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Vizianagaram, returned the complaint with the following objections: “Heard. The complaint is returned with the following objections: 1) How this complaint petition is maintainable in this Court, as this Court is constituted as Special Court for trying Prohibition and Excise offences, as per G.O.Ms.No.308, Rev. (Ex.II) Department, Dt.26.03.1996, hence this court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences under the Section of IPC. 2) How this Complaint petition is maintainable, with out filing Appeal/Revision against the order of the A.J.F.C.M., Vizianagaram, as the Complaint petition is dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. before number the complaint petition.” The said return endorsement is assailed in this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent herein misrepresented before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Vizianagaram, in C.C.No.177 of 2008, and therefore, the complaint filed by the petitioner herein before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Vizianagaram, is maintainable. 5. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram and also the return endorsement of the learned the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Vizianagaram. Indisputably, the petitioner invited the finding from the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, on his complaint. Unless and until the findings recorded by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class are set side aside by the competent Court, the petitioner cannot present a fresh complaint on the same set of accusations. The objections taken by the learned the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Vizianagaram, are sustainable. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:02nd December, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1814 of 2010 Date:02nd December, 2010