Sec.498 A ,506 of I.P.C.- Sec.3&4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act -Criminal Revision Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC - Non framing of Charges under Sec.3&4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and No discussion of charges framed under sec.506 I.P.C. in judgement as if it is not framed - liable to be set aside - without permission a Defacto complainant can file Revision in police/Calender Case - Act. 5/90 was introduced with effect from 31-12-2009 and as the criminal revision is filed in the year - being revisional court , it can not disturbed the acquittal order and as such remanded the case for fresh trial after framing charges required -2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS



charges were framed for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC and the accused were
tried for the said offences with which they were charged.  And, no
charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The trial court had framed two charges namely one under Section 498-A
and another under Section 506 of the IPC and examined the accused with
reference to the said charges on 19.10.2006.
But in the impugned
judgment, there was no reference to the charge under Section 506 of the
IPC against the accused; and, strangely the court below had dealt with a
charge under Section 420 of the IPC though no charge was framed against
the accused for the said offence.

Whether the judgment impugned is liable to set aside in
the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of
the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner?

Therefore, this court is of the well considered view that the judgment of
the trial court is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
Indisputably, this case arises out of a police report.  By the
judgment impugned, the trial court recorded a finding of acquittal
against the accused.
 The State did not prefer any appeal.  The present
revision case under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC is preferred by the
informant/victim who is the wife of A1.
The informant/petitioner did
not seek leave of this court for preferring an appeal and had not
preferred any appeal.
 Under Section 372 of the CrPC, no appeal shall lie
from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by
the Code or by any other law for the time being in force.
 By the time
this criminal revision was instituted in the year 2008, the proviso which
was introduced by Act 5/09 with effect from 31.12.2009 was not on the
statute book.
Therefore, since the case arises from a police report and as
the calendar case was taken on file pursuant to the police report, a
revision is maintainable.
 However, Section 401(3) of the CrPC says
nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to
convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising the
powers of revision.
Therefore, in the light of the legal position and the
facts peculiar to the case, the only course open to this court is to remit
the matter to the trial court for disposal of the matter afresh in
accordance with the procedure established by law.
In view of the said
decision of this court to remit the matter to the trial court for fresh
consideration of the case on merits in all respects, this court did not
examine the credibility and reliability and adequacy or otherwise of the
evidence in regard to the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC.
Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed and the
judgment of the court below is hereby set aside and the matter is
remitted to the trial court for fresh disposal of the case on merits in
accordance with the procedure established by law having regard to the
charges specifically framed against the accused.
It is made clear that
the trial Court is at liberty to frame any other additional charges, if
necessary, against all or any one of the accused by following the
procedure established by law.
 However, it is also made clear that the
prosecution as well as the accused are at liberty to recall any witness
already examined either for examination in chief or cross examination as
the case may be and also to adduce further evidence, if any, which the
law permits.
The trial court shall consider the entire evidence on record
in proper perspective while disposing the case afresh on merits.- 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

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.