Allowed

Edara Laxmana Das, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Oct 2009CRLRC/1692/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court allowed the petitioner's application under Section 233(3) Cr.P.C. to summon witnesses to prove documents marked during 313 Cr.P.C. examination, setting aside the trial court's dismissal as an attempt to delay proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; Crl.MP.No.21 of 2009 to summon Tahsildar, Head Master and S.I. of Police allowed.

Edara Laxmana Das, Vs The State of Andhra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1692 of 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This revision is directed against the order, dated 07.09.2009 passed in Crl.MP.No.21 of 2009 in S.C.No.30 of 2009 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki, whereby and whereunder, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 233(3) Cr.P.C.

¶5

When the revision came up for admission, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor takes notice on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the revision is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

¶6

The petitioner is an accused in S.C.No.30 of 2009 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki. He is being tried for the charge under Section 306 IPC. His plea is that his name is Jillellamudi Laxmaiah, S/o Pardhasaradhi and not Edara Laxman Das. It appears, the deceased stated in her statement that one Lakshman has been harassing her since 15 days prior to 16.06.2008. It is the contention of the petitioner/accused that he is not Lakshman, whose name has been referred in the statement of the deceased, but his name is Jillellamudi Laxmaiah, S/o Pardhasaradhi. He produced Exs.D.7 to D.9 during 313 Cr.P.C. examination. Thereafter, he filed Crl.MP.No.21 of 2009 under Section 233(3) Cr.P.C. to summon the Tahsildar, Addanki Mandal, Head Master of Government Boys High School, Addanki and M.Bala Sundara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, presently working in Mandamarri Police Station, to prove Exs.D.7 to

¶7

D.9. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the ground that no purpose would be served by summoning them and that the application was filed to drag on the proceedings. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order impugned in the revision, which reads as hereunder:

¶8

“Here, prosecution is not disputing with these documents. But he is called as Edara Laxman Das S/o Pothuraju. So, in these set of circumstances, if petitioner brought any material then it is helpful to the Court to come to a right conclusion whether he is called as Jillelamudi Laxmaiah, S/o.Pardharasadhi or Edara Laxman Das, S/o.Pothuraju to summon the Tahsildar, Head Master and S.I. of Police does not fulfill any object except supporting the documents, which are issued and filed by him. So, no purpose will be served by summoning them, this application filed by the petitioner to drag on the proceedings, which is at the fag end of the trial. So, I do not find any merits in this application. Hence, petition is dismissed.”

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been pleading that he is “Jillellamudi Laxmaiah, S/o Parthasaradhi” and he is not “Lakshman”. The petitioner marked Exs.D.7 to D.9 during 313 Cr.P.C. examination. A further contention has been made that the above-referred witnesses are only to prove Exs.D.7 to D.9.

¶10

It is well settled that mere marking of the documents does not amount to proving the contents therein. When the petitioner wants to summon the above-referred witnesses to prove Exs.D.7 to D.9, there cannot be any valid objection from the side of the prosecution. The trial Court is not justified in dismissing the application on the ground that the petitioner filed it to drag on the proceedings. Filing the petition to summon the witnesses commences after closure of the prosecution

¶11

evidence and after examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner exercised his right to summon the witnesses at the appropriate time. Therefore, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside.

¶12

Accordingly, this revision is allowed at the admission stage and consequently, Crl.MP.No.21 of 2009 filed by the petitioner to summon the Tahsildar, Addanki Mandal; Head Master of Government Boys High School, Addanki and M.Bala Sundara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, presently working in Mandamarri Police Station, shall stand allowed.

¶13

____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 9^th OCTOBER, 2009.

¶14

Note: issue copy by next working day.

¶15

kvni

Edara Laxmana Das, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edara Laxmana Das, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Agam Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. v.Lalitha, Vs Smt. v.Lakshmi

M/s. Nischint Constructions, rep by its Proprietorix Smt. Vs Dr. Pasumarthi S.N.Murthy

A.RajshekarRao, Vs The State of A.P.

Kilari Shivakrishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Defence Estate Officer Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration