//
archives

public prosecutor

This tag is associated with 16 posts

Sec.321 of Cr.P.C. – withdrawal of prosecution – Permission rejected – offence under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – G.O. issued to withdraw – basing on G.O. – prosecutor filed the petition for withdraw – Trial court rejected the same – High court confirmed the same – Apex court held that we are of the considered opinion that view expressed by the learned trial Judge as well as the High Court cannot be found fault with. We say so as we are inclined to think that there is no ground to show that such withdrawal would advance the cause of justice and serve the public interest. That apart, there was no independent application of mind on the part of the learned public prosecutor, possibly thinking that the Court would pass an order on a mere asking. The view expressed in Name Dasarath’s case (supra) is not applicable to the case at hand as the two- Judge Bench therein has opined that the law laid down in Sheo Nandan Paswan’s case has not been correctly appreciated by the learned trial Judge and the High Court. We have referred to the said authority and the later decisions which are on the basis of Sheo Nandan Paswan’s case have laid down the principles pertaining to the duty of the public prosecutor and the role of the Court and we find the view expressed by the trial Court and the High Court is absolutely impregnable and, therefore, the decision in Name Dasarath (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the result, the criminal appeal, being sans substratum, is dismissed. = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1587 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 1487 of 2012) Bairam Muralidhar … Appellant Versus State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41797

     Sec.321 of Cr.P.C. – withdrawal of prosecution – Permission rejected – offence under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – G.O. issued to withdraw – basing on G.O. – prosecutor filed the petition for withdraw – Trial court rejected the same – High court confirmed … Continue reading

Legal Remembrancer’s Manual (for short, ‘LR Manual’) framed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) whether the respondent who had been appointed as District Government Counsel (Criminal) at Meerut in January, 1993 was entitled to have the term of his appointment renewed. – No = State of U.P. and others ….Appellants versus Ajay Kumar Sharma and another ….Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40968

Legal Remembrancer’s Manual (for short, ‘LR  Manual’)  framed  by  the     Government of  Uttar  Pradesh  and     Section  24  of  the  Code  of  Criminal   Procedure (Cr.P.C.)  whether the  respondent  who  had  been   appointed as District Government Counsel (Criminal) at  Meerut  in  January,   1993 was entitled to have the term of his … Continue reading

question of jurisdiction. = JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS AND OF INVESTIGATOR IN MATRIMONIAL CASES = certain events were claimed to have taken place at Hyderabad through telephonic conversations between the petitioners and Krishna Reddy, through personal meetings between Krishna Reddy and the 1st and 2nd petitioners, through a memorandum of understanding, dated 11-05-2007 at Hyderabad, e-mails received at Hyderabad and withdrawal of Rs.8,00,000/- within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Hyderabad. Whether a part of the cause of action for prosecuting the petitioners for the offences or domestic violence alleged arose at Hyderabad or not will be a matter of conclusion at the trial and not before hand and hence, the application of Section 179 or Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and any consequential requirement of complying with any procedural safeguards will depend upon the factual conclusions that will be arrived at during trial. REPORTED IN/ PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9000

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.7063 of 2008 and 2539 of 2009 29/02/2012 A. Ashok Vardhan Reddy and others Smt. P. Savitha and another COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy COUNSEL FOR 1ST RESPONDENT: Sri P. Krishna Reddy ^COUNSEL FOR 2ND RESPONDENT: — Crl.P. No.2539 of 2009: A. Ashok … Continue reading

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act In the present case, the accused has not disputed her signature on Ex.P-1, the cheque. But according to her, the blank cheque was issued in favour of Ushodaya Finance Company in which complainant’s son is a partner and the complainant misused the same for filing the complaint and she further pleaded that she has not borrowed any amount from the complainant and he has no capacity to lend the amount. PW.1 in the beginning of the chief examination has stated that the accused borrowed the amount on 26.10.1998 and subsequently has stated six months prior to 26.10.1998 and in cross-examination he has deposed that he does not remember as to why he agreed to lend money and actually when he lent the money to the accused and his evidence is inconsistent with regard to date on which the amount was lent to the accused. The complainant as PW.1 has stated that he retired from service in the month of April, 1995 and according to him after one year he has received the retirement benefits and from the date of his retirement till he lent the money to the accused, he kept the money with him in the hands. According to him the amount was lent to the accused in the month of April or October, 1998 and there is a gap of nearly two years in lending the amount to the accused and according to the complainant he kept the said amount in his house for all these two years. The trial Court has rightly disbelieved said version of keeping such a huge amount without investing the same in his house. PW.1 further deposed that the accused has executed a bond on her own hand- writing after receiving the said amount of Rs.1,90,000/- and in the cross- examination he has deposed that the said bond was returned by the complainant one week or ten days prior to the issuing Ex.P-1 cheque. The trial Court has rightly disbelieved that version as no prudent man would return the bond executed by the borrower without obtaining the cheque in lieu of said bond and more particularly when there is a dispute with regard to the property between the accused and her daughter as per paper publication made in Vaartha newspaper. According to PW.3 P.Dharma Reddy, he has gone to the house of the accused along with the complainant and in his presence the accused has issued the said cheque to the complainant but he could not state about the location of the house or identity of the house of the accused. The accused has got marked Ex.D-2 a letter written by her to the bank requesting stop payment of the disputed cheque stating that she has issued two blank cheques bearing No.384351 (marked as Ex.P-1) and No.132958 to Ushodaya Finance Company and she had no liability to the said firm and in the event of presentation of the said cheque for encashment, the payment may be stopped. Admittedly, the said letter was addressed to the State Bank of Hyderabad on 08.10.1998 and the same was acknowledged by the said bank. The said letter was addressed by the accused to the said bank much prior to the date of issuing the cheque Ex.P-1. PW.1 admitted that he himself scribed the contents of Ex.P-1 cheque. Admittedly, the accused was working as a teacher as on that date and if really she has issued a cheque for Rs.1,90,000/- she would have written the blanks in the said cheque with her own hand writing. Thus, the complainant has scribed the same in his hand- writing supports the contention of the accused that she issued two blank cheques in favour of Ushodaya Finance Company. The above circumstances create a doubt with regard to lending of the money by PW.1 to the accused and the accused issued the cheque in favour of the complainant. Thus, the accused by relying upon the evidence produced by the complainant could able to rebut the presumption available under Section 139 of the N.I. Act by preponderance of possibilities. Thus, the trial Court has rightly held that the complainant has failed to establish the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and rightly dismissed the complaint basing on the material available on record. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 439 OF 2005 17-08-2012 R.Indrasena Reddy, M.Prabhavathi and another. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P.Nageshwara Rao, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri V.Ramachander Goud, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. (2009) 1 SCC 492 2. … Continue reading

provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked in stead of filing of second revision petition, in case, there is apparent injustice. Thus, the facts of the present case do not warrant any interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C being a second revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. If it was CRM No. M 37269 of 2010 11 permitted, then every petition facing the bar under Section 397(3) could be challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, the present petition is neither maintainable nor is there any merit in the same. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed on both counts i.e. on the question of maintainability as well as on merits.

CRMNo. M 37269 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH — CRM No. M 37269 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.05.2011 Maghar Singh and another …….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …….Respondent(s) Coram: Hon’ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. T S Sangha, Senior Advocate with … Continue reading

admissibility of a document in criminal procedings=During the course of evidence, the complainant tendered the certified copy of agreement, dated 30.04.2004. The petitioners raised objection for marking the said document. The learned Magistrate, on considering the objections raised by the petitioners and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to over-rule the objections and permitted the complainant to mark the certified copy of the agreement, dated 30.04.2004, by order, dated 25.11.2011. =i have gone through the memo filed by the petitioners herein in C.C.No.77 of 2006, copy of which has been placed on placed on record at page No.13 of the material papers. It is stated in the memo that the petitioners herein admitted of their signatures in the 1st page of the agreement, dated 30.04.2004. Such is the memo., the observation made by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be without any basis. No valid ground has been made out to quash the order, dated 25.11.2011, passed in C.C.No.77 of 2006.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY   Criminal Petition No.854 of 2012   Date:24th January, 2012     Between: Lucky Enterprises rep. by its Prop:Manderapu Venkata Ramayya (A1) & Anr.                                                                               ….. Petitioners AND   The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. …..Respondents   ***   THE HON’BLE … Continue reading

Delay in filing FIR=There is also no explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint. Further-more, the lower Court noticed that the evidence of the doctor clearly goes to show that on 02.09.2001 PW.1 was examined at 12-00 Noon and the age of the injuries is about 24 to 36 hours prior to the examination, consequently the lower Court has found that the injuries must have been caused, if any, prior to 12.00 Noon on 01.09.2001, and which destroy the prosecution case that the incident happened on 01.09.2001 at 9.30 P.M. Evidently, there are said to be some civil disputes and ill-feelings between both the parties. The evidence of PW.1 is not supported by any independent evidence and the medical evidence is also not corroborative and therefore, the lower Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and there are no compelling reasons to come to a different conclusion.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICEN.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO     CRIMINAL APPEAL No.70 OF 2012     JUDGMENT:-   The appeal is filed against the acquittal of the accused in Calendar Case No.324 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kandukur.   2.       The parties are referred as arrayed in the lower Court.     … Continue reading

Delay in lodging complaint=The accused was charged for the offences punishable under Section 7(1)(d) of the PCR Act and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. =As rightly found by the learned Magistrate the incident was happened on 23.03.2003 at about 5.30 P.M., and the report was not immediately lodged, PW.2 went to an Advocate, took his advice and the complaint was lodged only on the next day at 11.00 P.M., i.e., nearly 30 hours after the incident. The Police Station is said to be not far off and it is just 15 KMs from the village. When the other witnesses were present, there is no reason as to why PW.2 should go and consult an Advocate and the complaint should be prepared when PW.2 himself is a Sarpanch. Therefore, it is quite clear that the complaint apart from being lodged after long delay in consultation with an Advocate, the purpose of it can be really seen. From the material evidence on record, it appears that there might have been questioning of the Sarpanch by the villagers and in that some verbal exchanges might have taken place and the incident seems to have been magnified. The learned Magistrate has given sufficient reasons to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused and there are no compelling reasons to come to a different conclusion.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO     CRIMINAL APPEAL No.68 OF 2012     JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed against the acquittal of the accused in Calendar Case No.184 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam. 2.       The accused was charged for the offences punishable … Continue reading

cancellation of bail=The only other ground on which the petitioner claims cancellation of bail is that there is life threat to him. The petitioner is stated to have given a report in Rayadurgam Police Station on an incident in which some persons attempted to trespass into his house. Even as per the petitioner’s case, the said attempt was not accomplished. Even as per the petitioner, A-3 was not one of such persons who attempted to trespass into his house. He claims that his enquiries revealed that those persons were men of A-3 and they came there to conduct rekki of his house. The petitioner did not give details of the alleged enquiries made by himself to find out the reason why some persons attempted to trespass into his house. He did not also state as to details of those persons, except alleging that they were men of A-3. It is a vague and bald allegation. There is no basis to conclude that the alleged persons who attempted to trespass into his house were connected to A-3. It is nothing but the petitioner’s assumption based on no ground. It is not the petitioner’s case that any persons hurled any threats on him or any persons muchless A-3 attempted on his life. 8) The Additional Public Prosecutor stated that after receipt of report from the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner of Police gave necessary instructions to the Inspector of Police, Rayadurgam Police Station and that now a police beat point is located at the petitioner’s house and that day patrolling as well as night patrolling by the police in the locality of petitioner’s house is increased and that steps have been started for opening rowdy sheets on all the accused including 2nd respondent/A-3 in this crime. In that view of the matter, the police have taken appropriate steps on the apprehensions of the petitioner though there is no basis for such apprehensions of the petitioner. Therefore, this is not a fit case for cancelling bail granted to the 2nd respondent/A-3 by this Court earlier, exercising the power either under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. 9) Hence, the petition is dismissed.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5699 of 2011 16-08-2011 E.Sanjeeva Reddy The State of A.P, rep. by Public Prosecutor and another Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Gandra Mohan Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor ORDER : The petitioner is witness No.11 in Crime No.168/2011 of Chandanagar Police Station of Cyberabad … Continue reading

dowry harassment complaint =There are two elements in the above said section which includes the explanation, which clearly indicates ‘cruelty’ means by way of harassment driving a woman to commit suicide or to suffer with injury, second element of the said section indicates that the harassment should be in connection with demand of dowry. On the entire reading of the complaint, the above said ingredients are totally not attracted, more particularly, the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4921 of 2010 against the mother-in-law of the victim girl. Further the learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to inform why the wife of the petitioner has not lodged the complaint and what prevented her from lodging a complaint. Even based on the present complaint, which is in the nature of hearsay, this Court is of the view that no offence made out as alleged in the charge sheet. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.507 of 2006 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2976 of 2009 and 4921 of 2010 01-03-2011 Crl.P.No.2976 of 2009 Mr.Rajesh Gutta,S/o.late Apparao Gutta,Age 33 years,R/o.12727 Vista Del NorteApt # 508, San Antonio TX 78216, USA 1.State of A.P., Through P.P.,High Court of A.P., Hyderabad AND 2 OTHERS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. RAJA GOPALLAVAN TAYI, … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,870,166 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,904 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com