Criminal Petition No. 4379 of 2010
Sri T.Achamma
The State of A.P. & others
Counsel for Petitioner: Sri K.Ramamohan Mahadeva
Counsel for Respondent : Additional Public Prosecutor
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order in Crl.R.C.No.19 of 2009 dated 05.02.2010 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajampet, Kadapa District, confirming the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajampet, in Crl.M.P.No.643 of 2008 in C.C.No.40 of 2005 dated 28.01.2009.
2. Heard
3. The petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.40 of 2005. In the said Calendar Case, on 15.02.2006 charges were framed, summons were issued to LWs 1 to 4 and the case was posted to 17.03.2006. During the pendency of the proceedings A.3 died and case against him was abated. On 02.01.2008 LW.1 (petitioner herein) was present and at the request of the accused, the case was adjourned to 07.01.2008. On 07.01.2008 also the petitioner (LW1) was present and at her request the case was adjourned to 21.01.2008. On 21.01.2008 LWs 1 to 4 were absent. However, on 06.05.2008 LW.1 was present and again sought for an adjournment, but there was no representation on behalf of the prosecution since it was not APP day. Again the case was adjourned to 03.06.2008 and fresh summons were ordered to the witnesses with specific instructions to produce the witnesses on 30.06.2008. However, on that day, LWs 1 to 4 were absent and summons were not served on them. Observing that in spite of passing specific orders, the summons could not be served, the learned Magistrate closed the evidence of LWs 1 to 4 and issued fresh summons to LWs 5 to 10 and posted the case to 22.07.2008. On that day, the prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.643 of 2008 praying to recall LWs 1 to 4 and examine them. The learned Magistrate observing that inspite of giving several opportunities, the prosecution failed to produce the witnesses, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried in revision by the Prosecution. However, the said petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that revision is not maintainable against interlocutory orders. Challenging the same, this petition has been filed.
4. It appears that LW.1 is the injured witness and LWs 3 to 4 are the eye witnesses. They being the material witnesses, if not examined by the prosecution, the very purpose of conducting trial against the accused will be defeated. It is settled law that Revisional Power cannot be exercised in relation to interlocutory orders in view of sub-section 2 of Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the term 'interlocutory order' in Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure appears to have been used in a restricted sense and not in a broad sense. Any order, which substantially affects the rights of the parties, cannot be treated as interlocutory order to bar a Revision. Therefore, the impugned order, which has the affect on the result of the case, cannot be treated as an interlocutory order. Moreover, the trial Courts shall not close the doors particularly at the time of trial and allow the parties to adduce evidence. Of course, it is the mistake of the prosecution in not serving summons on the material witnesses in spite of specific directions issued by the Magistrate. For not serving summons on witnesses, the learned Magistrate ought to have taken steps against concerned Police Officials and ought not to have closed the prosecution evidence.
5. By closing the prosecution evidence, great injustice would be done to the victims. Justice is not only to be done to the accused but also to the victims. In view of the same, I consider that the impugned order has to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the criminal petition is allowed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.463 of 2008 stands allowed. The learned Magistrate shall fix a date and issue summons to LWs 1 to 4 with a specific direction to the Police to comply with these directions and serve the summons and to see that summons are served on LWs 1 to 4 and that they are produced before the learned Magistrate on the date fixed by him. He may also inform the superior Police Officers with regard to this order to see that summons are served on LWs 1 to 4.
7. Subject to above observation, the Criminal Petition is allowed.


Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.