Satyam case: HC has no control

Registry objects to HC hearing Raju appeal

The Hyderabad High Court on Thursday held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals by Satyam Computer Services Limited (SCSL) founder B. Ramalinga Raju and nine others challenging the conviction and sentence awarded by the XXI additional chief metropolitan magistrate of (special CBI court) Hyderabad.

Ramalinga Raju and others moved the High Court after rejection of their appeals by the Metropolitan Session Judge of Hyderabad declaring that the appeals are not maintainable as the sessions judge has no jurisdiction over the special court as it was designated as a sessions court.

The state government has designated the XXI additional chief metropolitan magistrate court as sessions court to try the offences against the accused in the multicrore Satyam accounting fraud under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The Registry of the High Court raised an objection over the jurisdiction of hearing the appeals by the High Court.

When these appeals came for hearing before Justice T. Sunil Chowdary, he asked counsels for the appellants and the CBI to assist the court.

Counsels for both sides contended that the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeals.

Counsels for appellants said the special CBI court has tried all the offences under the IPC as per Section 248 (2) and Chapter 19 of the CrPC in the capacity of the magistrate and the special court was designated as sessions court only to try the cases under the PMLA Act.

When the magistrate tried the cases under the relevant provisions of the CrPC, the next appellate court is the sessions court. If the High Court hears the matter, they will lose their remedy before the sessions court and they have to to go the apex court in case the HC dismisses their pleas are dismissed by the HC.

While considering the contentions, Justice Sunil Chowdary upheld the objections of the Registry by observing that mere designation of the special court to try the cases under the PMLA shall not amount to upgradation of the court as a sessions court.

Maintaining that the decision of the MSJ court in rejecting appeals was misconceived, the judge directed the Registry to remand the appeals to the MSJ court along with case bundles and the MSJ court was asked to deal with the appeals and pass appropriate orders after examining it.