Allowed

Kondamudi Satyamurthy v. The State of a.P.rep. by Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC24 Feb 2011CRLRC/749/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside an order impugned to Section 319 Cr.P.C. allowing the addition of the petitioner as a third accused because the lower court relied solely on suggestions made to witnesses during cross-examination which were denied.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is allowed and the impugned order bringing the petitioner on record as third accused is set aside.

Kondamudi Satyamurthy Vs The State of a.P.rep… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:749 OF 2004

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

This revision is directed against the order dated 03.04.2004 in Crl.M.P.No.1210 of 2004 in C.C.No.1 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, whereby the petition filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor under Section 319 Cr.P.C., to bring the revision petitioner on record as third accused was allowed.

¶4

On the basis of a report given by the Deputy Director, District Treasury Office, Guntur, Arundelpet L & O Police registered a case in Crime No.228 of 2001 on 6.8.2001 against two persons for the offences punishable under Sections 409 & 420 of IPC. The petitioner herein was shown as L.w.8. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1 of 2003 and the learned V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, proceeded with the trial and recorded the evidence of five witnesses. At that juncture, as stated supra, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed the said application stating that the petitioner, who is shown as L.W.8, should also be brought on record as 3rd accused. Though the same was opposed by the petitioner, the said application was allowed and the petitioner was brought on record as 3rd accused. The same is questioned in this revision.

¶5

The respondents were served with notice.

¶6

The main contention of Sri Balreddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that only basing on the suggestions made to witnesses during the course of cross-examination (which were denied), the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed the said application and the Court below in a routine and mechanical manner brought the petitioner on record as 3rd accused.

¶7

From a perusal of the material on record, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the petitioner has been brought on record

¶8

basing on the suggestions made to the witnesses during the course of cross-examination. In my considered view, the Court below ought not have brought him solely on the basis of the suggestions, which were denied by the witnesses. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner need not be brought on record as third accused.

¶9

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order impugned herein is set aside.

¶10

__________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Dated: 24.2.2011 Nn

¶11

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶12

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:749 OF 2004

¶13

24.2.2011

Kondamudi Satyamurthy v. The State of a.P.rep. by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kondamudi Satyamurthy v. The State of a.P.rep. by 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

M/s. Allah Kirana and Jaggery Merchants, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise

Repaka Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Suresh Kirana, and Jaggery Merchants, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise Cases

Vuba Nagamani, Wengala Nagamani Vs Vuba Atchayya

Sri.Javalakshmi Traders,Rep.by its Parnter C.S.Prasada Rao Vs State of a.P.,Rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Bheem Singh Vs Shakuntala Bai