Dismissed

Savalam Benerji v. State of A.P. rep. by its Station House Officer

Telangana HC21 Feb 2011CRLP/5140/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged proceedings under multiple IPC sections including sedition, contending that the specific charge of sedition was inapplicable. The court allowed this specific plea but dismissed the criminal petition, granting liberty to argue subsequent charge-framing.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition dismissed; liberty granted to petition to plead against sedition at charge framing.

Savalam Benerji Vs State of A.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5140 of 2009

¶3

Date: 21.02.2011

¶4

Between :

¶5

Savalam Benerji,S/o.Nayakam.

¶6

… Petitioner/Accused No.7

¶7

And

¶8

1. State of A.P. rep. by its Station House Officer & another

¶9

… Respondent/Complainant

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶11

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5140 of 2009

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The petitioner/A7 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 153, 153(A), 124(A) IPC in Sessions Case No.165 of 2008 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kovvur, West Godavari District. Subject matter of the case is agitation said to have been lead by the accused for construction of Indira Sagar Project (Polavaram Project) without providing adequate rehabilitation measures to tribal people residing in the sub-merging areas of the project. The agitation was lead by agency, Girijana Ryoth Coolie Sangham.

¶14

2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that Section 124 (A) IPC has no application to facts of the case at all, as there was no sedition on the part of the petitioner/A7, even if the allegations in the charge sheet and FIR are taken on their face value. It is also contended that explanation 3 to Section 124(A) IPC is applicable to facts of this case. Even if this contention of the petitioner’s counsel is considered in this petition, the entire proceedings relating to other offences are not going to be quashed in this petition as against the petitioner. It is a matter which has to be urged by the petitioner before the trial Judge at the time of framing of charge, in which event, the trial Judge will have to pass a speaking order. The petitioner is given liberty to do so.

¶15

3. Subject to the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶16

__________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶17

Dt: 21^st February, 2011

¶18

ysk

¶19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5140 of 2009

¶21

DATED:21.02.2011

¶22

ysk

Savalam Benerji v. State of A.P. rep. by its Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savalam Benerji v. State of A.P. rep. by its Station House Officer

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

Kunduru Buchi Reddy Vs State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Sadhu Ramakrishna Rao, Vs Sadhu Syamala Devi

Venkudothu Shivaji Vs Parvath Mallareddy

Mohd. Shoukathulla Khan Vs State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Nalam Manoj Kumar, Vs Battu Nanda Kumar

Kishore Lal Yadav, Vs The State of A.P.