About Me

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

Friday, June 20, 2014

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







No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.