Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner is A.1 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2011. Consequent on his failure to appear before the trial Court in D.V.C.No.1 of 2011, N.B.W came to be issued against him on 25.11.2011. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.3190 of 2011 under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C to recall NBW issued against him.= The petitioner contended before the trial Court that he could not be present on 25.11.2011 due to his ill-health. The trial Court, having taken note of the fact that no documents have been placed on record to speak of his ill health, proceeded to dismiss the petition. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.


CRLRC 223 / 2013

CRLRCSR 3217 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
RAMCHANDRA REDDY  VSSMT.G.AMARAVATHI & 2 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : VENKAT REDDY THIPPARTHIRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: Other offences not covered aboveDISTRICT:  MAHABUBNAGAR
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.223 of 2013

ORDER:-
This revision is directed against the order dated 19.11.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3190 of 2012 in Crl.M.P.No.3348 of 2011 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kalwakurthy, whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class dismissed the application filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C.
The petitioner is A.1 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2011.  Consequent on his failure to appear before the trial Court in D.V.C.No.1 of 2011, N.B.W came to be issued against him on 25.11.2011.  The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.3190 of 2011 under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C to recall NBW issued against him. 
He pleaded in the petition that he fell ill and therefore he could not be present before the Court on 25.11.2011.  The respondent opposed the said application.  The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to make out any valid ground for his absence on 25.11.2011 and proceeded to dismiss the petition.  Hence this revision. 
The petitioner contended before the trial Court that he could not be present on 25.11.2011 due to his ill-health. 
The trial Court, having taken note of the fact that no documents have been placed on record to speak of his ill health, proceeded to dismiss the petition.  I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.  However the petitioner is at liberty to surrender himself before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalwakurthy and move an application seeking for regular bail.  In which event, the learned Magistrate has to consider the application on the same day, as practicably as possible.

___________________________

JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

7th February, 2013
Vjl/Gm                                         

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.