Dismissed

Vasarla Ashok v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Sept 2022CRLP/3402/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought release of animals seized in a crime under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act via a Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court rejected the petition as infructuous since the trial had concluded with the conviction of the accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed as infructuous pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Vasarla Ashok Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3402 0F 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Vasarla Ashok, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged about 32 years, Chinna Meduguru Village Devara Uppal Mandal Jangaon Dishict

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused No.1/Owner of the Animals

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Through Station House Officer Bibinagar Police Station Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District, Represented by its Public iProsecutor High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

Petition under Section 482 read with 451 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to release the animals seized in Cr.No.231 ot 2020 on the file of Bibinagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District to the petitioner forthwith in the interest of^justice.

¶13

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, (Not present) Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public ,.i Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶14

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶15

\ \

¶16

i) I

¶17

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.34O2 OF 2O2O

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner-accused No.1 to release the animals seized in Crime No.23l of 2O2O of Bibinagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered frrr the offences under Sections 1l(a)(e)(h) read with Section 38 of Prevention of Animal Act, 1960 and read with Sections 46 to 56 of Transport of Animal Rules, 1978.

¶21

'l'here is i)o representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶22

l,earncd Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- Sterte has submitted that during pendency of this criminal petition, the Police concerned have completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet and the same was taken on file b1, the learned trial Court and numbered as C.C.No.945 of 2O2O and having concluded the trial, the trial Court lound the petitioner guilty of the offences alleged and the case is ended in conviction on 1O.O3.2022. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has filed a copy of

¶23

¶24

¶25

letter dated^{05.O5.2022addressed by the Sub-lnspectorof} Police, Bibinagar^{Police Station,Rachakonda} Commissionerate, to^{the PubiicProsecutor oi the High} Court to substantiate^{the same.}

¶26

In view of the^{above submission, sinceentire} investigation is^{completed, charge sheet is fiied and the} case is ended in^{convictionon1O'03'2022' the very} purpose of filing the^{criminal petition toreleasethe} animals seized in^{CrimeNo.23 I of 2O2Oof BibinagarPolice} Station, Rachakonda^{Commissionerate,isdefeatedand} thereby the Criminal^{Petition has becomeinfructuousand} liable to be^dismissed.

¶27

Accordingly, the^{Criminal Petition isdismissed} S

¶28

infructuous.

¶29

Pending Miscellaneous^{Applications,ifany' shall}

¶30

stand closed.

¶31

¶32

Sd/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶33

¶34

To,

¶35

//TRUE COPY// i /_ lY'

¶36

SECTI olq5rrrcen

¶37

The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir.

¶38

The Station House Officer, Bibinagar police Station, Rachakonda

¶39

Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District.

¶40

Two CCs to the Assistant Public^prosecutor, High Court for the State of

¶41

¶42

¶43

Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. One CC to SRI P. NAGENDRA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies PSR A^>

HIGH COURT

DNR, J

\ DATED:2110912022

ORDER

CRLP.No.3402 ot 2020

tt{ E sTArE
)
tl
O 11 lAil ?$n
ti IJ
u
*
DJ-.t. n
^1(';

¶51

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL^{PETITION AS} INFRUCTUOUS

Vasarla Ashok v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasarla Ashok v. The State of Telangana

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

Kunam Raghava Reddy, Jubille Hills., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Yasam Pocham, Adilabad Dist. Vs Sho, Ps Mancherial, Adilabad Dist. and Ano

Smt. Bittu Sunitha Rani, Vs The State of Telangana

Kotla Narsimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

R. Praveen Kumar , Praveen Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Smt. Banoth , Kampelli Kavitha Vs The State of Telangana