Showing posts from November, 2012

Res judicata - Accordingly, I hold that the findings of the trial court in O.S. Nos.274 and 276 of 1983 that the suit land is not part of Survey No.43 of Bholakpur village operates as Res judicata against the Government, since they have not preferred any appeals against the said findings. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Government in CCCA No.194 of 1998 is not maintainable. As far as the issue with regard to the powers of the appellate Court, under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC, are concerned, the same has to be considered in other appeals, therefore I am not inclined to express any final opinion on the said point.1) Whether the findings of the lower Court on issue No.1 in O.S. Nos.274 and 276 of 1983 have to be treated as decree and whether they operate as res judicata against the Government, since the Government have not filed any appeals challenging the said findings? 2) Whether the Government of Andhra Pradesh was not required to file appeals on the ground that no enforceable decree was passed against it?


C.C.C.A. No.194 of 1998


State of A.P. rep. by Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad and

B. Ranga Reddy and others.

Counsel for the Appellants:Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, Advocate-General

Counsel for the Respondents:   Sri Challa Sitaramaiah, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Sri B. Rajendra and M. Narender Reddy

<Gist :

>Head Note:

?  Cases Referred:
1. (1974) 2 SCC 151
2. (1979) 4 SCC 163
3. (2005) 6 SCC 304
4. 1993 Supp(2) SCC 146
5. 1993 Supp(2) SCC 149
6. 1995(2)ALT 122(DB)
7. AIR 1966 SC 1332
8. (2010) 7 SCC 717
9. AIR 1996 Karnataka 296
10. (1974) 2 SCC 393
11. (1995) 6 SCC 733
12. (2007) 11 SCC 75
13. (2001) 8 SCC 173
14. AIR 1996 Madras 94
15. AIR 1995 SC 1205
16. (2004) 1 SCC 712
17. (2002) 2 SCC 85
18. (2003) SCC 34
19. (2003) 9 SCC 606

        The preliminary objection raised by Sri Challa Sitaramaiah, learned Senior
Counsel, representing Sri B. Rajendra and M. Narender Reddy…

whether by virtue of clause (iii) of Section 407(1)(c) Cr.P.C., the Sessions Judge got authority to transfer the case as was done in this case. On the analysis of the scope of Sections 209, 407 and 408 Cr.P.C., I am unable to agree with the observations made that Section 408(1) Cr.P.C. only gives power to a Sessions Judge to transfer a case pending in one criminal court to another criminal court in his Sessions Division, but it does not give power to the Sessions Court to call for a case to that Court from the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class without formal committal, because the committal of a case from a Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class to a Court of Session under Section 209 Cr.P.C. or under Section 407(1)(c)(iii) Cr.P.C., cannot be equated with power of transfer as enshrined in Section 408(1) Cr.P.C. Consequently, I am also unable to agree with the observation that the ideal procedure is to file application before the Magistrate itself by the Public Prosecutor or by the aggrieved party requesting the Magistrate to commit the case under Section 323 Cr.P.C. to the Court of Sessions where the connected case is pending. Consequently the observation made that if the case is not committed by the Magistrate and the aggrieved party file an application before the Court of Sessions for transfer, even though the Sessions Court has no power to transfer, it can dispose of the transfer application directing the Magistrate to consider the request to commit the same to the Sessions Court where the connected case is pending is also not acceptable. In my considered opinion, these observations are quite contradictory to the provisions of Section 408 Cr.P.C., which empowers the Sessions Judge to transfer a criminal case from one criminal court to another criminal court, which got superior jurisdiction, within his Sessions Division. 13. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the plea of the learned counsel for the accused is not tenable as I see no infirmity in the order passed by the Sessions Court. Ultimately, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. The Transfer Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.




Aijaz Ali Qureshi and others

The State of A.P. and another

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M. Layeeq Khan

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor


>Head Note:

?Cases referred:
2007 CRI.L.J. 1877


1.      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) to set aside order dated 03.5.2012 passed in Transfer
Crl.M.P.No.202 of 2012 (Crl.M.P.) on the file of the Court of Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, transferring C.C.No.725 of 2009 (C.C) on the file of
the Court of VIII Additioinal Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, to try and
dispose of along with S.C.No.540 of 2011 on the file of the latter Court under
Section 408 Cr.P.C.
2.      Whereas the petitioners herein are the respondents in the Crl.M.P. and A1
to A8 in the C.C., the second respondent herein is the petitioner in the
Crl.M.P. an…