SEC.391 OF CR.P.C. - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT CRIMINAL APPEAL STAGE - EXAMINATION OF EXPERT - IN SEC.420 , 406 IPC - when acquittal is not based on finding of non-examination of expert - an application in appeal for examination of expert is not maintainable as the purpose not solved - though the appellate Court has power to take additional evidence under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., the said provision has to be sparingly used.- Dismissed the criminal revision =
The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa in his
order dated 28-11-2013 specifically mentioned that the order of
acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate was not solely
basing on the non examination of the hand writing expert, but
taking the entire evidence into consideration. The learned IV
Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa also observed that there is
no mention about the non examination of hand writing expert by
the prosecution either in the appeal grounds or in the written
arguments filed in the appellate Court by the revision petitioner.
 Further, though the appellate Court has power to take
additional evidence under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., the said
provision has to be sparingly used. In the instant case, the
learned IV Additional Sessions Judge recorded elaborate
reasons for dismissing the petition. Therefore, in my view, the
learned appellate Court rightly dismissed the petition filed by the
revision petitioner/de facto complainant. The said order doesnot call for any interference in the present Criminal Revision

CRLRC 211 / 2014Click here to see the OrderCRLRC 211 / 2014CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
K.V.RATHNAM ACHARI  VSTHE STATE OF A.P., AND 2 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : RAVI SHANKERRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: Other offences not covered aboveDISTRICT:  CUDDAPAH
 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO



CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.211 OF 2014

Between:-

K.V.Ratnam Achari.
…Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant.
And

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public
Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and others.

…Respondents.


 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.211 OF 2014

ORDER:

 This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the
order dated 28-11-2013 in Crl.M.P.No.543 of 2013 in
Crl.A.No.12 of 2011 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions
Judge, Kadapa.
 The respondents were tried for the offences punishable
under Sections 420 and 406 of I.P.C., on the allegation that
they refused to return the gold ornaments pledged by the
revision petitioner/de facto complainant/Pw.1 and thereby
cheated him. By the Judgment dated 20-12-2010 in
C.C.No.449 of 2009, the learned I-Additional Magistrate of First
Class, Kadapa acquitted the respondents 2 and 3 of the saidoffences.
Feeling aggrieved, the de facto complainant filed Criminal
Appeal No.12 of 2011 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions
Judge, Kadapa and he also filed a petition under Section 391 of
Cr.P.C., to permit him to examine the hand writing expert as a
witness. The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa
dismissed the said petition by order dated 28-11-2013.
Aggrieved by the said order, the present Criminal Revision
Case is filed seeking to set aside the said order and permit the
revision petitioner/de facto complainant to examine the hand
writing expert as a prosecution witness.
 The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa in his
order dated 28-11-2013 specifically mentioned that the order of
acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate was not solely
basing on the non examination of the hand writing expert, but
taking the entire evidence into consideration. The learned IV
Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa also observed that there is
no mention about the non examination of hand writing expert by
the prosecution either in the appeal grounds or in the written
arguments filed in the appellate Court by the revision petitioner.
 Further, though the appellate Court has power to take
additional evidence under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., the said
provision has to be sparingly used. In the instant case, the
learned IV Additional Sessions Judge recorded elaborate
reasons for dismissing the petition. Therefore, in my view, the
learned appellate Court rightly dismissed the petition filed by the
revision petitioner/de facto complainant. The said order doesnot call for any interference in the present Criminal Revision
Case.
 Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall
stand closed.

_________________
R.KANTHA RAO,J
Date: 10-02-2014

Shr.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.211 OF 2014


































Date: 10-02-2014
Shr







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.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.