Dismissed

Rakesh Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC23 Jan 2013CRLRC/78/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two criminal revisions challenging the dismissal of applications under Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. to summon documents. The High Court held there was no illegality in the trial court's order dismissing the applications as the accused failed to produce documents or report witnesses earlier.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed as there is no illegality in the impugned orders.

Rakesh Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Revision Case Nos.77 & 78 of 2013

¶3

Date:23rd January, 2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Rakesh Prasad S/o.Karu Prasad

¶6

....Petitioner/Petitioner/Accused

¶7

(in both cases)

¶8

And

¶9

The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam, through the Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶10

....Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

¶11

(in both cases)

¶12

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.77 & 78 of 2013

¶14

COMMON ORDER:

¶15

These two Criminal Revision Cases are directed against the orders, dated 04.01.2013, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1167 and 1168 of 2012 in C.C.No.27 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam.

¶16

2. The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.27 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam. After closure of the evidence, when the C.C. stood posted for arguments on behalf of the petitioner/accused, the petitioner/accused moved two applications being Crl.M.P.No.1167 and 1168 of 2012 under Section 243(2) r/w.91 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam and to the Superintendent Engineer (Electrical), B.S.N.L. Electrical Circle, M.G.Road, Vijayawada, to produce or cause production of certain documents. The said applications were opposed by the CBI by filing objections.

¶17

The learned Special Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on haring the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to make out any valid ground for summoning the documents and thereby proceeded to dismiss both the applications, by orders, dated 04.01.2013. Hence, these two Criminal Revision Cases.

¶18

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and learned Special Standing Counsel for CBI Cases appearing for the respondent/complainant.

¶19

4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused that under Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. the Court is bound to issue process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing. Since the petitioner filed applications for summoning certain documents from the authorities, the trial Court ought to have considered the said applications.

¶20

5. Learned Special Standing Counsel for CBI Cases appearing for the respondent/complainant opposed the application on the ground that the petitioner did not choose to report before the Court of his having any evidence soon after his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., more over, the petitioner also did not choose to file any list of witnesses on his behalf and thereupon, the prosecution submitted its arguments and the case stood posted for judgment and therefore, the Criminal Revision Cases are liable to be dismissed.

¶21

6. It is trite to note Section 243 Cr.P.C. and it is thus:

¶22

“243.Evidence for defence.- (1) The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; and if the accused puts in any written statement, the Magistrate shall file it with the record. (2) If the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and

¶23

such ground shall be recorded by him in writing:

¶24

Provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had the opportunity of cross-examining any witness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice.

¶25

(3) The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on an application under sub-section (2), require that the reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court.”

¶26

It appears that the petitioner did not report of his having any defence witnesses when he has been asked by the trial Court during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and when the case stood posted for arguments, he has come up with the said applications to summon certain documents from the authorities. The contractor, who lodged the complaint with the C.B.I. against the petitioner/accused, is not a party to the said documents. Therefore, the trial Court, having taken note of the facts of the case, proceeded to dismiss both the applications, by orders, dated 04.01.2013. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned in these revision cases warranting interference of this Court in exercise of power under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

¶27

7. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed.

¶28

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶29

Date:23^rd January, 2013. cs

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶31

Criminal Revision Case Nos.77 & 78 of 2013

¶32

Date:23rd J anuary, 2013

Rakesh Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Prasad, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Apuri ( Originally Yepuri ) Sambasiva Rao Vs The State of Ap.

Malisetti Venkata Narasimha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Borella Arjun , Babu Vs The State of Ap.

Smt. v.Rajanishri Vs Sri K.Ramesh

A.Naga Padmavathi Vs State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

Aedukondalu Venkatesham, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh