Posts

Showing posts from August, 2016

When the police were accused - No investigation be placed in their hands for investigation against the complainant - transfer the same to other than local police is justifiable = Similarly, in a recent judgment in Rubabbuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat16 the Supreme Court directed investigation to be entrusted to CBI as the Gujarat State Police personnel were some of the accused in the alleged fake encounter of Sohrabuddin. In Koganti Lakshmi Vs. State Government of Andhra Pradesh17, on a review of case law, this Court directed entrustment of investigation of a criminal case to the CBCID to ensure that fair and impartial investigation is held into the serious complaint of burglary/robbery allegedly committed in a Jewellary shop at Vijayawada. A perusal of the said report shows that respondent No.3 has failed to address himself to the core issue raised by the petitioners, viz., whether there is any reason for the petitioners to apprehend bias on the part of respondent No.4. Instead, respondent No.3 has solely relied upon the reports of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nandyal and respondent No.4. None of these officers have gone into the grievance of the petitioners and tried to redress the same. On a careful consideration of the facts of this case, it cannot be held that the apprehensions expressed by the petitioners are without any basis. I am, therefore, of the opinion that interests of justice would be served if the investigation is entrusted to an agency, other than the local Police, as serious allegations have been made against them. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not be understood as this Court expressing its conclusive opinion either on the professed innocence of the petitioners or on the allegations of the petitioners against respondent No.4 or the other local Police officials. On the premises as above, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to transfer Crime No.162 of 2008 on the file of respondent No.5-Police Station to C.B.C.I.D. for further investigation.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY          
Writ Petition No.3998 of 2009

21-07-2010

Shaik Abdulla Shareef and others.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary,
Hyderabad, and others.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.P. Nagendra Reddy

Counsel for Respondents: AGP for Home for R.1 to R.5.
                                None for R.6.

:ORDER:

        This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the
respondents in not transferring the investigation in Crime No.162 of 2008 on the
file of respondent No.5 Police Station to C.B.C.I.D. as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioners sought for a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to transfer the
investigation in the said Crime to C.B.C.I.D.

        I have heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners,
and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
No one appeared for respondent No.6 at the hearing.

        The petitioners are …

Whether in each and every case triable by the Court of Session the accused shall be arrested and released on bail. ? = There is no requirement in law that in each and every case triable by the Court of Session the accused shall be arrested and released on bail. When only summons were issued to the accused to secure his attendance after the charge sheet is filed in a case triable by Court of Session the accused shall not be compelled to approach the Sessions Court/Special Court and to obtain bail. In every case triable by Court of Session unless the accused is arrested and is in judicial custody,, the question of his obtaining bail from the Sessions Court does not enough while committing the case it is enough on the part of the committing Magistrate to bind over the accused with or without sureties undertaking to appear before the Sessions Court till the conclusion of the trial.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO      
Criminal Petition No.9099 of 2010

17-09-2010

Guddanti Narasimha Rao

The State of A.P. and another

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. P.Ragendra Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent :  Public Prosecutor

:ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to issue a
direction to the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala,
Prakasham District not to insist the petitioner to obtain bail at the time of
committing P.R.C.No.26 of 2010 to the Court of Sessions.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State.

On a report lodged by the second respondent-complainant the police registered a
case under Section 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (POA) Act,
investigated into and filed a final report stating that the case is false.
Subsequently, in protest the second respondent filed a petition and the learned
Magistrate after recording sw…

Section 3(1)(x) of the Act reads as under: 3(1)(x). Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Thus, the offence must necessarily have occurred in any place within public view. Admittedly, the offence occurred within the residence of the petitioner. Consequently, whether there was any intimidation or insult is of no consequence inasmuch as it relates to the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR          
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1770 of 2008  

09-11-2011

D. Santosh Reddy      

The S.H.O., of Shamshabad P.S.,Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad and another

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sri V. Eswaraiah Chowdary      

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1: Public Prosecutor        
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2: Pochiraju Rameshwara Prasad              

ORDER:

        The unfortunate second respondent, who is the de facto complainant, was
allegedly abused referring to the community of the second respondent by the
petitioner.  The second respondent consequently lodged a complaint alleging that
the petitioner committed the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short,
'the Act').  Police laid final report closing the complaint and referring the
case.  Consequently, the second respondent filed a protest petition before the
VIII Metropolitan Magistrat…

Sub Divisional Police Officer, Dhone took up investigation in this case in accordance with Rule 7 of the S.Cs and S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995= no illegality or irregularity or impropriety - investigating on oral permission from concerned authority = This not a case where P.W-8 started, proceeded and completed investigation without any authorisation from the competent authority viz., the Superintendent of Police. In this case P.W-8 obtained oral permission of the competent authority for investigation and started the investigation and while proceeding with the investigation, he received formal proceedings from the competent authority two days thereafter. Subsequently P.W- 8 continued the investigation and collected some more evidence and arrested the accused. In my opinion, until getting formal orders of the competent authority empowering the investigating officer for investigation in a case of this nature, the department cannot afford to wait and cannot allow evidence to dwindle without its collection and preservation. The proceedings dated 14.12.2003 of the Superintendent of Police validate the entire investigation of P.W-1 in this case. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity or impropriety on the part of P.W-8 in taking up investigation of this case and completing the investigation.; It is evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 that A-2 caught hold of neck/throat of P.W-1 and scratched on his chest and beat him on chest and that A-3 scratched P.W-1 on his cheek. The medical officer P.W-5 found a scratching injury only on chest, apart from complaints of pain on neck. He did not find any injury on any cheek of P.W-1. There is no medical corroboration for the overt act alleged against A-3. - Genesis of this incident appears to be the unauthorised entry and movement of P.W-1 across garden land belonging to A-1; and when A-1 questioned P.W-1 about the same, P.W-1 became aggrieved and went away and after two days he gave Ex.P-1 report alleging abuses in the name of his caste.= It is evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 that A-2 caught hold of neck/throat of P.W-1 and scratched on his chest and beat him on chest and that A-3 scratched P.W-1 on his cheek. The medical officer P.W-5 found a scratching injury only on chest, apart from complaints of pain on neck. He did not find any injury on any cheek of P.W-1. There is no medical corroboration for the overt act alleged against A-3. Therefore, I doubt the presence of A-3 at the scene and his participation in the offence. If really A-2 intended to insult P.W-1 as he belongs to Mala caste, A-2 could have dealt with blows on P.W-1 with any stick or other weapon without touching him. The fact that A-2 is alleged to have caught hold of neck of P.W-1 and scratched on chest of P.W-1, indicates that he has no discrimination on the basis of caste. A-2 did not hesitate to touch P.W- 1 with his hands. It is contended by the accused during trial in the lower Court that P.W-1 questioned A-1 because he was moving through agricultural land belonging to A-1 unauthorisedly. This is not a case where A-1 questioned P.W-1 on the ground that he was moving in the locality of the accused. P.W-3 denied the said suggestion. On the other hand, P.W-4 who turned hostile for the prosecution deposed that A-1 abused P.W-1 saying as to how he has got right to move through his garden land. Genesis of this incident appears to be the unauthorised entry and movement of P.W-1 across garden land belonging to A-1; and when A-1 questioned P.W-1 about the same, P.W-1 became aggrieved and went away and after two days he gave Ex.P-1 report alleging abuses in the name of his caste. Evidence of P.W-4 casts shadow of doubt on the prosecution case as to the reason for the incident as contended by the prosecution. Even as per the prosecution case at the place of incident, A-1's agricultural land is there. In those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the lower Court did not appreciate the evidence on record with reference to genesis of the incident and came to an erroneous conclusion in favour of the prosecution. I do not agree with the reasoning and finding of guilt recorded by the lower Court.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU              

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2520 of 2004    

06-09-2011


Mogili Seshi Reddy and others

The Station House Officer, Jonnagiri Police Station Kurnool Dist and another

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu

Counsel for the Respondents:  Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT :  
        A-1 to A-3 who are father and sons are the appellants herein.  They were
convicted by the lower Court under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and were sentenced to
Simple Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- each.  A-2 and A-3
were also convicted under Section 323 I.P.C and were sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- each.  Questioning the same, A-1 to A-3 filed this appeal.
        2) P.W-1/victim belongs to Mala community which is a scheduled case, where
as A-1 to A-3 belong to Reddy community.  There is no dispute about the castes
of the parties.  Ex.P-7 is caste certifica…

Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (for short the Act) seeking directions to the defendants to handover physical possession of the suit schedule property= an order which is passed which would sub-serve and promote the interest of justice should be preserved rather than the one which is likely to produce the opposite result. The 1st petitioner herein has admitted to have sold a part of the suit schedule property namely 73 square yards to the respondent herein through Ex.B2(=Ex.A2). Whereas the case of the respondent is that he has purchased the entire suit schedule property comprising of 150 square yards. Ex.B2 document, which is a registered sale deed and the covenant contained therein together with the description of schedule-B property and the plan annexed thereto clearly support the case of the respondent that he purchased the whole of 150 Sq.yds and was put in possession of a dilapidated building standing thereon. To dislodge this claim, the 1st petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.2592/2008, but that suit was dismissed. This apart O.S.No.2102 of 2009 was filed by one of the tenants of the respondent herein seeking injunction against the 1st petitioner herein, that suit is decreed. It presupposes, therefore, that it is tenant of the respondent herein who was found in possession of the suit schedule property in the year 2009 and hence, the averment of the plaintiff/respondent herein that it is during June 2010, the 1st petitioner herein started unauthorized improvements to the suit schedule property with a view to induct the other defendants as tenants, stands to reason to be accepted. He has succeeded in that attempt, as is reflected from Ex.A13, copy of the judgment rendered in W.P.No.15415 of 2010 dated 03.08.2010 instituted by the respondent herein. It is, therefore, clear that during June 2010, the respondent herein has been unjustly deprived of his possession of a dilapidated house by unauthorizedly undertaking improvements thereto so as to realise huge sums of money as monthly rents therefrom. Therefore, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge in O.S.No.1515/2010 does not call for any interference as there is no failure of exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the said Court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand dismissed. No costs.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4234 of 2015  

04-03-2016

N.Sivaraj Madiga and 3 others Petitioners


M.Durga Redy Respondent  

Counsel for the Petitioners:Sri Vedula Srinivas

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao                      

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Citations:
1.      AIR 1953 SC 23
2.      (2004) 4 SCC 664
3.      AIR 1966 SC 153
4.      (2002) 1 SCC 535

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4234 of 2015  

ORDER:
      This revision is preferred by the defendants in O.S.No.1515
of 2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judges Court,
Ranga Reddy District.
      The sole respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit.  The
said suit is instituted under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (for
short the Act) seeking directions to the defendants to handover
physical possession of the suit schedule property comprising of 77
square yards in plot No.10, surv…

even there is excess of discharge of official duty, sanction is mandatory - Apex Court including Anjani Kumar Vs.State of Bihar , it was held when complaint filed against the government official as a counterblast to the action taken by him and when the facts show the complaint as afterthought with deliberations roped the official in continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process therefrom quashed the proceedings and for that conclusion referred several expressions.

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO          

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4319 of 2015  

28-01-2016

S.Bala Krishna ...Petitioner/Accused

The State of Telangana  Rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad and
another .Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : M/s K.R.Koteswara Rao

Counsel for respondent No.1 :Public Prosecutor
Counsel for respondent   No.2:G.Tirupati Reddy

<GIST  : ---

>HEAD NOTE : ---

? Cases referred:                                :
1.  AIR 2001 SC 2547
2.  AIR 1939 FC 43
3.  AIR 1948 PC 128
4.  AIR 1955SC 309
5.  AIR 1955 SC 287
6.  AIR 1956 SC 44
7.  AIR 1957 SC 458
8.  AIR 1979 (0) 1841
9.  AIR 1966 SC 220
10. AIR 2000 SC 3187
11. AIR 1955 SC 287
12. 2015(1) SCC 513
13. 1993 3 SCC 339
14. 2008(11) SCC 289
15. 2015 AIR SCW 3282  
16. 2012 3 SCC 64
17. (2012)12 SCC 72
18. (2006)4 SCC 584
19. 2015 12 scale 500
20. AIR 1951 SC 207
21. 2015 (2) ALD (Crl) 627(SC)
22. AIR 2005 SC 4305
23. (2005) 8 SCC 130
24. 2015 AIR SCW 2643  
25. 2004 8 SCC 40
26. …