Allowed

Chintakayala Vijay v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Dec 2022WP/34822/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a direction to produce electronic gadgets is unsustainable under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. when the accused denies possession. Omnibus directions to produce documents were also quashed. A fresh notice adhering to Nandini Satpathy guidelines was directed.

What did the court decide?

Set aside directions (i) and (g) of the Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice; directed issuance of a fresh notice adhering to Nandini Satpathy guidelines.

Chintakayala Vijay Vs the State of Ap — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

W.P.No.34822 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner, who is accused No.3 in Crime No.14 of 2022 of CBCID Police Station, Mangalagiri, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the notice dated 22.10.2022 under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. given to the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the direction “(i)”, which reads as follows:

¶5

“(i) You are here by directed to bring all the electronic gadgets you have been using for ITDP and other social media campaigns, with mobile Ph.Nos.77299 99957; 63099 99955; 99665 34355 while appearing before the IO on 26.10.2022 without fail.”

¶6

2. Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

¶7

would submit that such a direction is, essentially, a direction selfincriminating. He would further submit that the petitioner is not in possession of any of the material sought under direction (i) and for that reason the petitioner cannot comply with such a direction. He would further submit that the alleged non-compliance of the direction would not be sufficient for arrest of the petitioner and the same would not be permissible.

¶8

Heard Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Y.L. Siva Kalpana Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBCID.

¶9

RRR,J 2 W.P.No.34822 of 2022

¶10

The direction to bring electronic gadgets, when the petitioner specifically denies possession of such gadgets, cannot be made part of a direction under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, direction (i) set out in the notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., dated 22.10.2022 issued by the 3^rd respondent is set aside.

¶11

Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that direction (g) that – “you will produce all relevant documents/material required for investigation as per law”, also cannot be insisted upon as it is an omnibus direction which cannot be complied with by the petitioner. As the said direction is an omnibus direction and is difficult to comply with, the same is also set aside.

¶12

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with a further direction to the investigating officer to issue a fresh notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. In the event of such a notice being issued, the petitioner may be examined in accordance with the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L. Dani and Anr.,¹ . In the event of any variation from the said procedure, it would always be open to the petitioner to approach this Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

22^nd December, 2022 Js.

¶15

1 (1978) 2 SCC 424

¶16

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶17

RRR,J 3 W.P.No.34822 of 2022

¶18

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶19

W.P.No.34822 of 2022

¶20

22^nd December, 2022

¶21

Js.

Chintakayala Vijay v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintakayala Vijay v. the State of Ap

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

V Aswartha Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vemula Ashwini Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mogaparthi Sombabu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Girish Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr.Ravula Venkata Ramana Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nekkanti Satyanarayana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh