Allowed

Patnala Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC7 Dec 2011CRLP/5159/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dismissing objections by complainant's counsel, quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner across five cases citing Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to total lack of identification as no witness identified him in police statements and no test identification parade was conducted.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in the above cases against the petitioner are quashed.

Patnala Srinivasa Rao Vs State of A.P. rep. by… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5154, 5157, 5158, 5159 & 5167 OF 2009

¶3

Date: 7.12.2011

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5154 OF 2009:

¶5

Between:

¶6

Patnala Srinivasa Rao …..Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through the Inspector of Police (L&O), Circle-II P.S., Visakhapatnam and another

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5157 OF 2009:

¶11

Between:

¶12

Patnala Srinivasa Rao

¶13

…..Petitioner And

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through the Inspector of Police (L&O), Circle-II P.S., Visakhapatnam and another

¶15

…..Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5158 OF 2009:

¶16

Between:

¶17

Patnala Srinivasa Rao

¶18

…..Petitioner

¶19

And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through the Inspector of Police (L&O), Circle-II P.S., Visakhapatnam and another …..Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5159 OF 2009: Between: Patnala Srinivasa Rao …..Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through the Inspector of Police (L&O), Circle-II P.S., Visakhapatnam and another …..Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5167 OF 2009: Between: Patnala Srinivasa Rao …..Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through the Inspector of Police (L&O), Circle-II P.S., Visakhapatnam and another …..Respondents

¶20

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5154, 5157, 5158, 5159 AND 5167 OF 2009

¶23

COMMON ORDER:

¶24

Heard Sri B.Shasi Bhushan Rao, the learned counsel for petitioner in all the criminal petitions and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶25

2. The petitioner in these five petitions is same and he filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for quashing the proceedings in C.C.Nos.896, 894, 898, 895 and 897 respectively on the file of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (trial court) in so far as he is concerned.

¶26

3. In all the cases the offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 120-B, 147, 447, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It is seen that the petitioner is accused No.22 in all the five cases. The allegations in all the five cases are to the effect that about more than hundred persons attacked and destroyed certain private properties belonging to complaint parties therein. The petitioner is stated to be one of them. It is not necessary to discuss about the details of other accused.

¶27

4. What should be noted is that in the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it will be found that none of the eyewitnesses identified this petitioner and his name is not found

¶28

anywhere including the F.I.R. In all the five cases the chargesheets show that the concerned investigating officer has not conducted test identification parade for the purpose of showing that this petitioner also participated in the alleged incident. The record does not disclose on what basis, the investigating officer has charge-sheeted this petitioner also.

¶29

5. Sri Balaji, counsel representing Sri G.Venkateswara Rao the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant in Crl.P.No.5158 of 2009 and Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant in Crl.P.No.5159 of 2009, pointed out that the petitioner can raise all his objections in the above criminal cases and therefore this Court should not now interfere in these matters. There is no force in this contention.

¶30

6. As already mentioned, nothing is stated about the identity of the petitioner in the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and no test identification parade was also held. In these circumstances it is not known on what basis the investigating officer has identified this petitioner as a culprit or assailant. Sri Balaji pointed out that in all the five cases the petitioner was also sent to judicial custody and the concerned learned Magistrate has remanded him to custody and therefore it cannot be said that he was remanded to custody without any basis and consequently this Court should not interfere in the matters and the petitioner should be directed to workout his remedies before the trial court. It is true that this contention may apparently sound forceful but it should be noted that even while sending the petitioner for remand the investigating officer should have relied upon certain statements of the witnesses to establish his identity but no such statements are filed by the prosecution. To repeat, no test identification parade has been conducted. In these circumstances the prosecution against this

¶31

petitioner cannot be allowed to be continued and it can be said that it has been launched without any basis.

¶32

7. Accordingly all these five criminal petitions are allowed and the proceedings in the above cases against this petitioner are quashed. It is however made clear that if in the course of trial if the trial court finds that evidence is forthcoming to warrant his prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the trial court may proceed against him.

¶33

___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶34

7^th December, 2011 Tjmr

¶35

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶36

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5154, 5157, 5158, 5159 & 5167 OF 2009

¶37

DATE: 07.12.2011

Patnala Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patnala Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor

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

Balireddy Chandrasekhar Reddy , Chandra Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Panchaparvala Kanya Nageswara Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

M/s Shree Deepa Durgs , Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd., Vs State of A.P.

Tanguturi Venkateswarlu, Vs Cholaveti Chenna Kesava Rao

Modh. Ismail, (A3) Vs Md.Iqbal

V.Radha Rukmini, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh