Posts

Showing posts from March, 2013

FORGERY = Even where a document is sent for examination by an expert, the opinion is only persuasive in nature and it cannot be treated as final. If the opinion suffers from any lacunae, the concerned party can certainly point out the same. Ultimately, it is for the trial Court to satisfy itself as to whether the plea as to forgery or discrepancy is substantiated.; second opinion of expert on finger print = not only the expert rendered his opinion, but also the he was subjected to elaborate cross-examination. The matter must rest at that. The petitioner wanted the same document to be sent to another expert. It is only when the opinion expressed by the expert is set aside or found fault with, for any specified reasons, that the occasion may arise for repeating the exercise. The facts of the present case do not permit of such an effort. Therefore, civil revision petition is dismissed.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY  CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.58 OF 2013 ORDER:           The petitioner and respondent No.18 filed O.S.No.10 of 1994 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle against respondents 1 to 17 herein for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, which are said to be agricultural lands.  On behalf of the contesting defendants, a plea was raised to the effect that the father of the petitioner executed a will, marked as Ex.B.12 in their favour.   Suspecting the genuinity of that will, the petitioner filed I.A.No.554 of 2004 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act with a request to send the document for the opinion of an expert. The I.A. was allowed and the expert rendered his opinion, to the effect that the signature and the thumb impression on the disputed document tally with those on the admitted documents.  The expert was also examined as D.W.1 and his opinion was made part of the record as Ex.X.1.  The petitioner…

Once the revision is pending, nothing in the D.V.C. can be said to have become final.hence the document petition is not maintainable - The petitioner wanted certain documents pertaining to D.V.C.No.1014 of 2007 to be made part of record in O.P.No.503 of 2007.The subject matter of the D.V.C. is substantially different from the one in an O.P. for divorce. At any rate, it is brought to the notice of this Court that feeling aggrieved by the order passed in D.V.C.No.1014 of 2007, the respondent filed a criminal revision case before this Court. Once the revision is pending, nothing in the D.V.C. can be said to have become final. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter and dismissed the I.A.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1049 of  2013
ORDER:

          Petitioner is the wife of the respondent.  Acute differences have arisen between them and several proceedings have ensued.  The respondent filed O.P.No.503 of 2007 in the Family Court-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for divorce against the petitioner.  On her part, the petitioner filed O.P.No.521 of 2007 for maintenance.  Certain other proceedings are also pending between the same parties and all of them are being heard together.           The petitioner filed I.A.No.246 of 2013 in O.P.No.503 of 2007 under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of further cross-examination and for marking certain documents pertaining to D.V.C.No.1014 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.  The application was resisted by the respondent.  The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 20.02.2012.  Hence …

J.F.C.M has got jurisdiction to release the vehicle/property seized in EXCISE OFFENCES =The petitioner is the owner of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 16 BP 0865. He approached the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise Cases), Khammam, for interim custody of the vehicle by moving an application vide Crl.M.P.No.89 of 2013 under Section 457 Cr.P.C. His application came to be dismissed on 11.02.2013 for want of jurisdiction. The issue involved in this Criminal Revision Case is no more res integra in view of the decisions of this Court in Smt. Karri Venkamma v. State of A.P.[1], Dharavath Sreenu v. State of A.P.[2] and A.Tata Rao v. State of A.P[3]. This Court, in the above-referred cases held that the criminal court has jurisdiction under Section 31 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, to pass orders for release of vehicles for interim custody.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.426 of 2013Date:15th March, 2013

Between:
Itham Yesu S/o.Bullaiah @ Billaiah ….Petitioner            A n d
The State of A.P., through SHO, Chintakani Police Station, Khammam District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent ***
































THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.426 of 2013
ORDER:

        This Criminal Revision Case has been taken out under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by Itham Yesu seeking release of motor cycle bearing No.AP 16 BP 0865, for interim custody, which has been seized on 28.01.2013 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinthakani Police Station, Khammam District, in Crime No.14 of 2013.
2.     The petitioner is the owner of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 16 BP 0865.  He approached the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise Cases), Khammam, for interim custody of the vehicle by moving an application vide Crl.M.P.No.89 of 2013 …

Boundary recitals of a document when useful - one Mr.Polinaidu has executed two documents and that in those documents, the petitioners were shown as the owners of neighbouring land. If that is true, the recitals, it will hardly be of any use to the petitioners. It is only when one of the parties to the suit has executed the document and made certain recitals, that other party can reply upon them to prove his case. The document is executed by a person who is not a party to the suit and the recitals therein would hardly be of any relevance to the suit. Further placing reliance upon the said recitals or contents will lead to several complications. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter and this court is not inclined to interfere with the orders under revision.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1050,1066,1086 AND 1087 of 2013
COMMON ORDER
All the four revisions are filed by the petitioners herein.  Hence, they are disposed through a common order. The petitioners filed O.S.No.274 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, against the respondents for the relief of Perpetual Injunction in respect of two items of property , aggregate to Ac.05-17 cents of land.  The petitioners are spouses, the 1st respondent is their son.  The 2nd respondent is said to be wife of 1st respondent, respondents 3 and 4 are said to be brothers and respondents 5 and 6 are nieces of the 2nd respondent.  The recording of evidence in the suit was concluded.  At the stage of arguments, the petitioners filed four applications namely I.A.No.2 of 2013 with a prayer to reopen the suit, I.A.No.3 of 2013 with a prayer to recall Pw.1, I.A.No.4 of 2013 for receiving documents and I.A.No.5 of 2013 for issuance of summons …

Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the property for interim custody. = The petitioner approached the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupalli by moving petition being Crl.M.P.No.279 of 2013 under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the property for interim custody. The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate refused to entertain the petition by order dated 28.02.2013. Hence this Criminal Revision Case.= The petitioner failed to place on record any material to show that he is a businessman authorised to deal in black jaggery. The very accusation against the petitioner is that he secured black jaggery for being used in preparation of I.D liquor. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioner is a businessman authorised to deal in black jaggery, he is not entitled to seek release of the black jaggery for interim custody.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.487 of 2013
ORDER:
        This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the return endorsement dated 28.02.2013 of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Sathupalli on a petition being Crl.M.P.No.279 of 2013 filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking return of 2600 kgs of black jaggery worth Rs.20,000/- seized in Crime No.22 of 2013 of Aswaraopet  P.S., Khammam District registered for the offence under Section 34(e) of  A.P.Excise Act, 1968 for interim custody.
2.     The Station House Officer,  Aswaraopet  P.S seized 2600 kgs of black jaggery  during investigation in Crime No.22 of 2013 registered for the offence under Section 34(e) of A.P.Excise Act on 7.2.2013 under the cover of  a panchanama.  The petitioner approached the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupalli by moving petition being Crl.M.P.No.279 of 2013 under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the property   for interim custody.   Th…

Police deleted an accused believing ALIBI - but Magistrate took cognizance not based on protest complaint, but based on 161 statements whether it is correct = It is well settled that when the police submitted a final report of investigation of a case, the Magistrate may take cognizance or direct further investigation. This legal position has been time and again clarified by the Supreme Court in several pronouncements, viz., in the matter of Bains v. State[3], wherein it has been held as hereunder:- “1. When a Magistrate receives a complaint, he may, instead of taking cognizance at once under Sec.190(1)(a) direct a police investigation under Section 156(3) ante; 2. Where, after completion of the investigation, the police sends an adverse report under Section 173(1), the Magistrate may take any of the following steps: “i. If he agrees with the police report, and finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further, he may drop the proceedings and dismiss the complaint. ii. He may not agree with the police report and may take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the original complaint, under Section 190(1)(a) and proceed to examine the complainant under Section 200. iii. Even if he disagrees with the police report, he may either take cognizance at once upon the complaint, direct an enquiry under Section 202 and after such enquiry take action under Section 203. However, when the police submits a final report or closure report in regard to a case which has been lodged by the informant or complainant, the magistrate cannot direct the police to straightway submit the charge sheet as was the view expressed in the matter of Abhinandan Jha [AIR 1968 SC 117] which was relied upon in the matter of Ram Naresh Prasad [(2009)11 SCC 299]. 8. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, accepted the alibi pleaded by the petitioner and deleted the name of the petitioner from the array of the accused after obtaining necessary permission from the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool. The learned Magistrate, on going through the charge sheet and the documents enclosed to it, more precisely, the 161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs. 1 to 4, proceeded to take cognizance of the offences u/s 147, 148, 452, 302, 307 r/w 149 IPC against A-1 to A-19 including the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A-3. Had the learned Magistrate treated the objections placed on record by the de facto complainant as complaint petition, necessarily the procedure contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C is required to be followed. The learned Magistrate has not treated the objections placed on record by the de factocomplainant as complaint petition. The main basis for taking cognizance of the offences is based on material gathered by the police during the course of investigation, more precisely the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Magistrate on the 161 Cr.P.C statements of LWs.1 to 4. It is not the case of the petitioner that his name has not been spoken out by L.Ws 1 to 4. Therefore, the learned Magistrate is justified in taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner along with other accused. There is no flaw in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. It is required to be noted that the petitioner was very much accessible to the Investigating Officer as he pleaded alibi and placed on record material to substantiate his plea. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner avoided the investigating officer during the investigation of the case. In these circumstances, the learned Magistrate ought not to have issued N.B.W straightaway. Therefore, I am inclined to modify the warrant issued against the petitioner from Non Bailable to Bailable.

           *THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
+Criminal Revision Case No.401 of 2013

% 05-03-2013
# Injeti Venkata Rami Reddy
… Petitioner
                     Vs.
$  State of A.P., rep. by     it’s Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. … Respondent

! Counsel for the petitioner :   Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy
 Counsel for 2nd Respondent:  Additional Public Prosecutor

< Gist:


> Head Note:



 ? Cases referred:
(2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 2012 (1) ALT (Crl.) 506 (SC) AIR 1980 SC 1883









THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.401 of 2013 ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 15-02-2013 passed in P.R.C.No.7 of 2013 whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302 and 307 read with 149 IPC against A-1 to A-19 including the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A-3 and whose name has been deleted in the array of the accused while filing charge sheet in Crime No.…