Disposed

Ma Rasheed Jameel v. The State

Telangana HC16 Aug 2017CRLP/4945/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a criminal petition seeking quashing of an earlier dismissal regarding the closure of evidence. The court directed the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases to take coercive steps to produce witness L.W.1 and complete the trial as expeditiously as possible. Petitioner requested a timeline of six months.

What did the court decide?

Ordered the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases to take coercive steps for L.W.1’s production and complete trial within six months.

Ma Rasheed Jameel Vs The State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4945 of 2017

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the order dated 01.02.2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.212 of 2017 in C.C.No.9 of 2013 by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, and to direct the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad to close the evidence of L.W.1 and conclude the trial in C.C.No.9 of 2013.

¶4

Crl.M.P.No.212 of 2017 was dismissed by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad on the ground that efforts are being made to trace out L.W.1 and to execute N.B.W. issued against L.W.1 and that the accused has no right to seek closure of evidence of a particular witness to be examined by the prosecution.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on account of non-appearance of L.W.1, the petitioner is roaming around the Court for the last one year and drawn the attention of this Court to the docket proceedings of the Court below. It is evident from the docket proceedings that N.B.W. was issued against L.W.1 on 19.09.2016 for his production and examination, and the same is still pending.

¶6

In fact, the trial Court observed that the petitioner is not competent to request the Court to close the evidence of prosecution, but on account of delay in securing the presence of L.W.1, the petitioner is roaming around the Court for the last one year. It is for the Court to take coercive steps for production of

¶7

MSM,J Crl.P_4945_2017

¶8

¶9

L.W.1 to complete the prosecution evidence. Though the petitioner has no right to seek relief in the petition filed before the Court, since speedy justice is a right of every citizen guaranteed under the Constitution of India, the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad is requested to take coercive steps for production of L.W.1 by following the necessary procedure and complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶10

With the above direction, the petition is disposed of.

¶11

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand

¶12

closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
16.08.2017
Ksp

Ma Rasheed Jameel v. The State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ma Rasheed Jameel v. The 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

Banoth Rama Rao Vs The State of Telangana

G.Satyanarayana Vs G.Chittilakshmi

D. Dharmendhar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Banoth Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Banoth Ravi, Vs The State of Telangana

T. Kiran Kumar Vs The State of Telangana