Single judge dismissed criminal petition challenging refusal to examine additional witness four years after complaint filing, holding remedy not maintainable.
Petitioner's prayer to examine additional witness dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2817 OF 2008
DATE:22.07.2010
Between:
Chirlamcherla China Venkata Subbaiah
…… Petitioner.
And:
State of A.P., rep. by its PP and another
…..Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2817 OF 2008
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed by the complainant questioning order dated 25.03.2008 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Markapur in Unnumbered Petition in C.C.No.205 of 2004 refusing to grant permission under Section 311 Cr.P.C to examine additional witness by name Kidumula Daniel.
2. The petitioner who is the Proprietor of Sri Radha Krishna Talkies, Markapur filed the private complaint in the lower court against the respondents 2 and 3/A-1 and A-2 who were the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Markapur and Inspector of Police, Markapur Town Police Station alleging offence under Sections 447 , 341 and 352 IPC. It is stated to be a case of seizure of film box relating to movie ‘Silent Love’ whose name itself indicates that it is a soft porn movie. The case has been pending since the year 2004. Nothing prevented the petitioner to name the
additional witness in the original complaint if he was a witness to the occurrence. Simply because the additional witness is stated to be Cinema Operator in the Theatre, one cannot expect his presence always in the projection room, particularly when the alleged seizure of the film took place at about 5.30 p.m. It is evident that the complainant wants to add witnesses after a period of four years with a view to fill up lacuna in his case. The lower court rightly refused to permit additional witness in this case.
3. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
__________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J.
Date:22.07.2010. Gk.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2817 OF 2008
Date:22.07.2010
Gk.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a private complainant can be granted permission to examine an additional witness four years after filing the complaint under Section 311 Cr.P.C?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
None citedReferred
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chirlamcherla China Venkata Subbaiah
State of A.P.
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
