Allowed

Sri a.K.H.S.Rama Raju v. State

Telangana HC2 Nov 2012CRLRC/2142/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal revisions challenging the dismissal of discharge applications under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. It held that technical errors in citing statutory provisions are not fatal and the accused's absence is not mandatory. The Court set aside the orders and directed the trial Court to reconsider them on merits.

What did the court decide?

Orders dismissing discharge applications set aside; Trial Court directed to consider applications afresh on merits; Petitioner-Accused dispensed with presence at trial.

Sri a.K.H.S.Rama Raju Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.2141, 2142, 2143, 2145 & 2146 OF 2012 COMMON ORDER:

¶2

Since the accused and the issue involved in all these revision cases are one and the same, these revision cases are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶3

All these revision cases arise out of the orders dated 21.9.2012 passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., for his discharge for the offence under Section 29 punishable under Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 in C.C.Nos.17, 23, 503, 601 and 604 of 2011.

¶4

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶5

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the discharge applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed technically on two grounds viz., (1) provision of law mentioned in the applications is erroneous and (2) the petitioner was absent on the date of hearing of the impugned applications, and that the trial Court has not considered the applications on merits and therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside.

¶6

The grounds mentioned in the orders impugned herein are not sustainable under law. If the provision of law is wrongly mentioned in the applications, the trial Court is at liberty to decide the issue as per proper provision, on merits. Further, the presence of the accused at the time of hearing such applications is not mandatory. It is also pertinent to note that when an application for discharge is moved by the accused, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and on merits, but not on technicalities.

¶7

Under the above circumstances, the orders under revision are set aside and the trial Court is directed to consider all the impugned

¶8

applications afresh and pass orders, in accordance with law and on merits. Till then, the presence of the petitioner-accused before the trial Court in all the above C.Cs., is dispensed with.

¶9

Accordingly, all the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these revisions, stand closed.

¶10

______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶11

Dated: 2^nd November, 2012 Nn

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶13

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.2141, 2142, 2143, 2145 & 2146 OF 2012

¶14

DATED 2^nd November, 2012.

¶15

Sri a.K.H.S.Rama Raju v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a.K.H.S.Rama Raju v. State

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 Penn Bio Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Jadagish, Vs The State of A.P.

K.Nageshwara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Marati Ramulu Vs The State of Ap.

Mohammad Abdul Samad , Munna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Valluripally Nageshwar Rao Vs The State of A.P.