//
you're reading...
legal issues

discharge of accused =Though the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the first information report, no specific overt act is attributed against him in the complaint. Further, the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer do not disclose that the petitioner was present either at the scene of occurrence or he participated in the crime, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In such a situation, this Court is of the view that pending of the case against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

Tripura sundar Temple, kakinada

Image via Wikipedia

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2275 of 2011

 

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1, under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 17.10.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.35 of 2011 in S.C.No.147 of 2011 on the file of the III Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said petition filed by the petitioner seeking to discharge him in respect of the offences under Sections 147, 341, 342, 353, 354, 506, 384 read with Section 149 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the entire material placed and relied on by the prosecution does not establish the complicity of the petitioner in the offences, that there is nothing against the petitioner except omnibus allegations in the charge sheet, and that there is no mention about the presence of the petitioner at the time of the alleged incident or at the time of seizure of the gold and cash.

This Court perused the entire record as well as the statements of the witnesses.

Though the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the first information report, no specific overt act is attributed against him in the complaint. Further, the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer do not disclose that the petitioner was present either at the scene of occurrence or he participated in the crime, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In such a situation, this Court is of the view that pending of the case against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 17.10.2011 passed by the III Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada, in Crl.M.P.No.35 of 2011 in S.C.No.147 of 2011 is hereby set aside and, consequently, the said petition is allowed and the petitioner is hereby discharged from the offences under Sections 147, 341, 342, 353, 354, 506, 384 read with Section 149 of IPC.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed shall stand closed.

                                                  _________________                                     RAJA ELANGO, J

2nd December, 2011

cbs

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

Criminal Revision Case No.2275 of 2011

 (Allowed)

2nd December, 2011

cbs

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,865,401 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,903 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com