Dismissed

Dasari Rajesh, v. Gottigundala Mahesh Kumar Reddy

Telangana HC23 Jun 2011CRLA/793/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed against an order of acquittal, holding that the appellant being a victim had a specific right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court. The cause of action under Section 378 Cr.P.C. was held invalid in this context.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; liberty given to file appeal to Sessions Court under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.; time spent deducted from limitation.

Dasari Rajesh, Vs Gottigundala Mahesh Kumar Reddy — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.793 of 2011

BETWEEEN:

Dasari Rajesh

… Appellant

AND

1. Gottigundala Mahesh Kumar Reddy & another.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.793 of 2011

¶11

JUDGMENT:

¶12

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. 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

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

_____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶19

Dated: 23.06.2011 ysk

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.793 of 2011

¶22

DATED:23.06.2011

¶23

ysk

¶24

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

Dasari Rajesh, v. Gottigundala Mahesh Kumar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari Rajesh, v. Gottigundala Mahesh Kumar Reddy

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

State Dy.Supdt. of Police Vs P.Ch. Satyanarayana

State Inspector of Police,Anti-Corruption Bureau Vs Sri.Upadyayula Subrahmanya Sharma

State rep by Inspector of Police Vs Sri K.Mallesham

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

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

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