Sunil Kumar Srivastav v. The State Of Telangana And 8 Others
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1221 of 2016 ORDER:
The present Criminal Revision Case came to be filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 27.01.2016 passed in T.Crl.M.P.No.595 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the learned Sessions Judge ordered transfer of S.C.No.481 of 2015 to the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District by withdrawing the same from the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. It is to be noted that accused Nos.4 to 7, 9 and 10 filed T.Crl.M.P.No.595 of 2015 before the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, seeking transfer of S.C.No.481 of 2015 from the file of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District to any other District Court for proper adjudication.
The learned Sessions Judge allowed the said petition and transferred the said case to the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy.
Aggrieved by the same the informant/ complainant preferred the present revision.
The material on record discloses that the trial in
S.C.No.481 of 2015 in XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District is completed and the matter was posted for judgment on 18.06.2015. The averments in the application filed for transfer state that the Presiding Officer advised the prosecution to file recall petition. It is stated that the witnesses were recalled and no opportunity was given to the accused to cross examine them, thereby causing great prejudice.
In view of the above, an application was filed seeking transfer of the case. Notice was ordered to the respondent-State and other accused and since they reported no objection for transfer of the case, the impugned order came to be passed.
Now the informant/complainant was come forward with this revision questioning the said order. It is to be noted from the record that the entire trial is over, the arguments were also heard and the case is posted for arguments. The respondent-State who filed an application for recall of the witnesses and also the other accused reported no objection for transfer of the case. Such being the position there is no point in entertaining the revision at this length of time. Since there is no stay till today and the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to say as to what happened to the case as it was posted for arguments in the month of June, 2015, I see no reasons to entertain the revision.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is
dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands closed.
_____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 21.04.2016 gkv