return of the articles pending appeal = Petitioners claim to be legal heirs of deceased G.Surya Kumari. They filed legal heir certificate before the court below. Further more, the accused in the Sessions Case did not claim that M.Os. 1 to 16 belong to them. In the facts and circumstances, imposing condition to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- is onerous. Therefore, the condition of executing ‘a personal bond of Rs.10,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum amount’ is modified and the petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. The other conditions imposed by the court below remain unaltered.


  

CRLP 350 / 2013

CRLPSR 1302 / 2013

PETITIONERRESPONDENT
GOTETI SRINIVAS, PARSIGUTTA, HYD., & 3 OTHRS.,  VSB.APPAJI @ APPA RAO, W.G.DT., & 3 OTHRS., REP PP.,
PET.ADV. : NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVARESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.482 Cr.p.c Other offences not covered(Misc.)DISTRICT:  WEST GODAVARI
FILING DATE:  21-01-2013POSTING STAGE :  FOR ADMISSIONDISPOSED ON  :  22-01-2013  ORD
REG. DATE    :   21-01-2013LISTING DATE :  22-01-2013STATUS   :  ---------
HON'BLE JUDGE(S):K.C.BHANU 

         


 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.  350 OF 2013

ORDER:

1.       Heard both sides.
2.       In Sessions Case No.21 of 2009 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsapur, the accused therein were found guilty of the offence under Section 411 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced. 
 It is a case of theft and murder.  
Certain ornaments marked as M.Os. 1 to 16 in the aforesaid Sessions Case were committed theft by the person accused of the offences, from the possession deceased G.Surya Kumari.   
Challenging the same, appeals were preferred.   
As per order dated 18.04.2012 in Crl.A.M.P.Nos. 651, 652, 825 and 824 of 2012 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1515 of 2010 and 1527 of 2010, this court directed to consider return of the articles as per the judgment to the persons who are entitled to the same by imposing conditions.     
Thereafter, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P. No.4233 of 2012 in crime no.62 of 2007 of Elamanchili police station, and the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur vide order dated 01.08.2012, ordered for interim custody of the said articles to the petitioners imposing conditions inter alia to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum amount.  Challenging the same as onerous, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

4.       Petitioners claim to be legal heirs of deceased G.Surya Kumari.  They filed legal heir certificate before the court below.  Further more, the accused in the Sessions Case did not claim that M.Os. 1 to 16 belong to them.   In the facts and circumstances, imposing condition to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- is onerous.  Therefore, the condition of executing ‘a personal bond of Rs.10,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum amount’ is modified and the petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.   The other conditions imposed by the court below remain unaltered.

5.       The Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly.
          Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
   

           ________________

(K.C.BHANU, J.)

22.1.2013
DRK


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU









CRIMINAL PETITION NO.  350 OF 2013










           Date: 22.1.2013


Comments

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 http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

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.