altered the charge= trial Judge altered the charge from Section 25(1)(1-a) to Section 25(1)(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act at the time of judgment. But, the altered charge has not been put to the petitioner/accused. = the charge can be altered at any stage of the case. However, the altered charge is required to be put to the accused. The appellate Court noticed of the omission committed by the trial Court with regard to putting of the altered charge to the petitioner/accused and thereby proceeded to set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 25(1)(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and remanded the matter back to the trial Court. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the judgment impugned in the revision case warranting interference of this Court in exercise of power under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.35 of 2013
Date:22nd January, 2013
Between:
Yerubandi Venkata Diwakar S/o.Jaggarayudu
....Petitioner/Appellant/Accused
And
State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
....Respondent/Respondent
***

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.35 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

        This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated  24.07.2012, passed in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2010 on the file of  I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 25(1)(1-B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act and remanded the sessions case to the trial Court to explain the newly altered charge under Section 25(1)(1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act to the petitioner/accused and record his plea and dispose of the sessions case afresh after giving opportunity to the prosecution as well as to the petitioner/accused to recall or re-summon and examine any witnesses.

2.     The petitioner is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.332 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District.  He faced trial for the offences under Sections 25(1)(1-a) and 27 of the Arms Act.  The learned trial Judge altered the charge from Section 25(1)(1-a) to Section 25(1)(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act at the time of judgment.  But, the altered charge has not been put to the petitioner/accused.  The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the petitioner/accused, found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Section 25(1)(1-B)(a) of the Arms act and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, by judgment, dated 11.03.2010.  The petitioner/accused assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2010 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.  The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, having come to the conclusion that the altered charge has not been put to the petitioner/accused, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 25(1)(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and remanded the matter back to the trial Court.  Hence, this Criminal Revision Case.

3.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

4.     It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused that the alteration of the charge at the fag end of the trial is opposed to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. 

5.     I do not see any substance in his contention, since it is well settled that the charge can be altered at any stage of the case. However, the altered charge is required to be put to the accused.  The appellate Court noticed of the omission committed by the trial Court with regard to putting of the altered charge to the petitioner/accused and thereby proceeded to set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 25(1)(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and remanded the matter back to the trial Court.  I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the judgment impugned in the revision case warranting interference of this Court in exercise of power under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 

6.     Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.  The trial Court is directed to dispose of the Sessions Case No.332 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

______________________
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.
Date:22nd January, 2013.
cs   

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY






















Criminal Revision Case No.35 of 2013



Date:22nd January, 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.

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.

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