Dismissed

M/s. Bhavishya Chits and Finance, Nellore, v. Madala Dasaradha Ramesh

Telangana HC24 Jun 2011CRLA/758/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal dismissed for failing to use the specific victim appeal route under Section 372 Cr.P.C. instead of Section 378 Cr.P.C. The court affirmed the lower court's acquittal and directed return of the impugned order for limitation calculations in the Sessions Court appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; liberty granted to file appeal to Sessions Court; time spent in this appeal to be deducted from limitation period.

M/s. Bhavishya Chits and Finance, Nellore, Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.758 of 2011

¶3

BETWEEEN:

¶4

M/s. Bhavishya Chits and Finance, Nellore. … Appellant AND

¶5

1. Madala Dasaradha Ramesh & another. … Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.758 of 2011

¶8

JUDGMENT:

¶9

The appellant seeks to file appeal against acquittal of the accused by invoking Section 378 Cr.P.C. before this Court, ignoring right of appeal provided under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. to the Sessions Court. This Court in G.Baswaraj Vs.

¶10

State of A.P .^[1] held that there is no conflict between Section 378(4) and proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and there is no inconsistency or clash between the said provisions. The proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. provides for a right of appeal to the victim

¶11

against order of (1) acquittal, (2) conviction for a lesser offence and (3) imposing inadequate compensation. The said proviso provides for an appeal to a Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. In this case, appeal against an order of conviction passed by the Magistrate lies to the Sessions Court.

¶12

2. The victim referred to in the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. includes a complainant in a case instituted otherwise than on police report and also a de facto complainant in a case instituted by the Police by way of final report. The only precondition is that the said private complainant or the de facto complainant should be in the nature of a victim. In the present case, the appellant is in the nature of a victim and therefore, he can prefer an appeal to the Sessions Court by invoking proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.

¶13

3. When there are two rights of appeal provided to a party, one right of appeal cannot be taken away by entertaining the present appeal by this Court.

¶14

4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed giving liberty to the appellant to file appeal to the Sessions Court as against the impugned order of acquittal, in which event, the Sessions Court will have to deduct the time consumed by the appellant in

¶15

pursuing this appeal before this Court while computing the period of limitation for the appeal that is going to be filed by the appellant before the Sessions Court. The registry is directed to return certified copy of the impugned judgment of acquittal to the appellant’s counsel.

¶16

_____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶17

Dated:24.06.2011 ysk

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL

¶19

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.758 of 2011

¶20

DATED:24.06.2011

¶21

ysk

¶22

[1] 2011(1) ALT (Crl.) 88 (A.P.)

M/s. Bhavishya Chits and Finance, Nellore, v. Madala Dasaradha Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Bhavishya Chits and Finance, Nellore, v. Madala Dasaradha Ramesh

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

Nunna Ravi Chandra Kishore (A-1) Vs The State of A.P.

Dasari Rajesh, Vs Gottigundala Mahesh Kumar Reddy

State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vs Sri.K.v.Subba Rao

State Range Inspector-Iii Anti Corruption Bureau Vs Sri.G.Madhusudhana Rao

State rep by Dy. Supdt. of Police Vs Sri L.Eswar Reddy

M/s. Marvel Financial Services Ltd., Vs P. Rajanikanth Reddy