Dismissed

Birender Kumar v. The Government of India, Ministry of Defence

Telangana HC3 Jul 2008WP/14192/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage. The petitioner, a co-accused, challenged the failure of the 3rd respondent to provide documents for his criminal defence. The court found that a committal order had already furnished all required documents under Cr.P.C. Sec 208, rendering the petition without substance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage with no order as to costs.

Birender Kumar Vs The Government of India, Ministry… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14192 of 2008

¶5

Between:

¶6

Birender Kumar S/o.Suresh Rai R/o.H.No.1-24-49, Near Vandana Degree College, Venkatapuram, Lothukunta, Alwal, Secunderabad - 15.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Government of India, Ministry of Defence, rep. by its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. 2 The Chief of the Army Staff, Army Hqrs. DHQ, Sena Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 011. 3 The Commandant, MC EME, Trimulghery Post, Secunderabad - 500 015. 4 The Commandant, 1 EME Centre, Bolarum Post, Secunderabad - 500 010. 5 The Commanding Officer, Military Hospital, Trimulghery Post, Secunderabad - 500 015.

¶10

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent for not providing the copies of documents as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to provide copies of documents related with the Criminal Case and take action as per law and pass such other or further orders.

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NARINDER PAL SINGH

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN)

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO. 14192 OF 2008

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

1. This writ petition has been filed by Birender Kumar assailing the action of the respondents in not furnishing the copies of documents required by him as illegal and arbitrary.

¶19

2. The petitioner is co-accused in Crime No.42 of 2004 registered for the offences under Sections 353 and 307 I.P.C. and Section 25(1) of Indian Arms Act. The accusation levelled against him is that he along with two other accused namely Gopal Prasad Singh and Arun Kumar Guptha formed a gang to extort money from the people who travel during night time. On the night of 12-2-2004 they witnesses a second show movie and were passing through defence colony. Police personnel intercepted them for checking. While so, A-1 took out a fire arm and aimed at T.Ravinder, S.I. of Police, crime, Neredmet, and T. Satyanarayana, P.C. 1526 of P.S. Neredmet, and fired to do away their lives. Police apprehended the petitiner-A-3 on 13-2-2004 and remanded him for judicial custody. A case was registered in Crime No. 42 of 2004 against the petitioner and two others by the S.H.O. Neredmet. After due investigation a charge sheet came to be submitted before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri.

¶20

3. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C.No.63 of 2005 and committed the case to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad as the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is exclusively triable by a Sessions Court.

¶21

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he made representation to the respondents seeking certain copies of documents such as Court of enquiry and wound certificate in respect of A-1 and A-2. Since his request has not been complied with, he chooses to approach this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the copies of documents have not been furnished to the petitioner and thereby he is unable to put up effective defence in the criminal case.

¶24

7. As seen from the committal order, the petitioner has been provided all the copies of documents as required under Section 208 Cr.P.C.

¶25

8. Therefore, the complaint of the petitioner that the copies of documents have not been provided and thereby he is handicapped in putting the effective defence has no substance.

¶26

9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is wholly misconceived and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs.

¶27

_____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy

¶28

3^rd July, 2008. KM

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO. 14192 OF 2008

¶31

3 rd July, 2008.

Birender Kumar v. The Government of India, Ministry of Defence

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birender Kumar v. The Government of India, Ministry of Defence

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

Smt. D.Jaya Vs G.H.M.C

Sri Reddy Sangaiah, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

A. Prabhavathi Vs The Competent Office, Rep. by its Executive Engineer,Aphb.

Penumatsa Venkata Ramakrishnamraju Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

G. Sanjeev Kumar, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Nizmabad

Sri Abburi Singaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its