Remanded

Shaik Shaik Shavali v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Mar 2021WP/5580/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenged the order framing an alternative charge of murder without hearing the accused. The Court held the order bad in law for violating natural justice and set it aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order framing alternative charge set aside and matter remanded to trial Court to consider afresh after hearing.

Shaik Shaik Shavali Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Criminal Petition No.5580 of 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 10.10.2019, passed by the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Pithapuram, East Godavari District, whereby he has framed an alternative charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.

¶6

The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.126 of 2016 on the file of the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Pithapuram, East Godavari District. They have been facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC in the said case. The trial in the said case commenced and the prosecution witnesses were already examined in the said case. After recording the evidence of the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased in the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge entertained a doubt that the deceased met with homicidal death. Therefore, relying on the dictum laid down in the cases of Sundrapalli Srinivas v. State of A.P.¹ and Shaik Jhani Basha v. State of A.P .² , the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed an alternative charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC by invoking Section 216

¶7

1 2002(2) ALD 31

¶8

2 2017(2) ALD (Crl) 1034

¶9

¶10

Cr.P.C. which enables the Court to frame additional charge or alternative charge at any stage of the proceedings of the case.

¶11

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court by way of filing this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the said order framing alternative charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against the petitioners.

¶12

Without touching the merits of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioners primarily challenged the validity of the impugned order on the ground that no opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioners, who are the accused in the said case, before passing any such order and framing an alternative charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable under law for violation of principles of natural justice as the same was passed without hearing the petitioners.

¶13

As can be seen from the impugned order, dated 10.10.2019, except stating that A-1 and A-2 are present, there is nothing to indicate in it to hold that an opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2, before passing the impugned order and framing alternative for the offence punishable charge under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioners and without adhering to the cardinal principles of natural justice of providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶14

¶15

Therefore, the impugned order is vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and for passing the order without hearing the accused.

¶16

Resultantly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court to consider the same afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing anything on merits.

¶17

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶18

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶19

Date:16.12.2021.

¶20

Shaik Shaik Shavali v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Shaik Shavali v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Sri Rama Mines and Minerals, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Sri Maheshwari Stone Crusher Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Sri Maheshwori Stone Crusher Vs State of Ap

Molla Jakir Hussain, Kurnool Dist Vs Porl Secy, Mines and Industries, Hyd and 4 Ot

Mula Maisura Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Brahmayya Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (Excise-Ii)