Dismissed

Kothakoa Saddam Hussain v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Dec 2022WP/39762/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking quashing of a complaint filed against the petitioner under the A.P. Excise Act was filed. The petitioners counsel argued that conviction cannot be based on co-accused confession and cited health issues. The court noted that while such confession cannot form the basis of conviction, it can aid investigation and dismissal was not appropriate.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition dismissing the quashing of the complaint under Section 41A CrPC; no order as to costs.

Kothakoa Saddam Hussain Vs the State of Ap — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.39762 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is Accused No.2 in Crime No.233 of 2022 on the file of Special Enforcement Bureau, Punganur Police Station, Chittoor District, for offences under Sections 34(1) r/w 34(a), 14(2), 42 of A.P Excise Act.

¶5

The petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition for quashing the said complaint against the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner has been included as an accused solely on the basis of the alleged confession of accused No.1 and the same is not permissible.

¶6

Sri P.V.Venkata Ravi Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the confession of a co-accused can never be the basis of investigation or for conviction and as such, the petition requires to be allowed. He would further submit that the petitioner is suffering from kidney problems and as such, any arrest of the petitioner would cause further damage to the health of the petitioner.

¶7

The learned Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is involved in three more crimes of a similar nature. He would further submit that the offences which are alleged against the petitioner attract

¶8

¶9

punishment of imprisonment of eight years and as such, the benefit of Section 41A of Cr.P.C cannot be given to the petitioner.

¶10

While it is settled law that the confession of coaccused can never be the basis for a conviction, the same cannot be said for investigation. The case is presently at the stage of investigation, the question of whether any further material and evidence will be found against the petitioner, in the course of the investigation, would be depend on the facts that would be found in the course of such investigation. In such a situation, stopping the investigation at this stage would not be appropriate.

¶11

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶12

However, in view of the fact that petitioner is

¶13

suffering from kidney problems, it would be appropriate that the investigating officer considers the health of the petitioner in the event of a requirement of arrest of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

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

¶15

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶16

15.12.2022 RJS

¶17

¶18

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.39762 of 2022

¶20

15.12.2022

¶21

RJS

Kothakoa Saddam Hussain v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kothakoa Saddam Hussain 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Venkata Krishna Rao Vs State of Ap.

M.Venkata Krishna Rao Vs State of Ap.

Kadali Bhargava Rajesh, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Gurram Sujatha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Moturi Kavitha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Rudraraju Prasad Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh