Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment made in Crl.M.P.No.370 of 2019 in C.C.No.7 of 2014 dated 28.08.2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases Cum lV Additional Chief Judge, Clty Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

tt/. Vijay Kumar, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged 53 years, Occ Former DCTO-1, Charminar Circle, Hyderabad.

¶9

... Petitione r/Accused Officer

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State ACB, through City Range-'1 , Hyderabad District.

¶12

2 rhe state of retansana, ACB through city R""s"-["H"idt"?36tIJB[il,3fPJ;' by its Spl' Public Prosecutor

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶15

Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Court below to summon the document pertaining to M/s. Shri Khargandi Diary Products Private Limited bearing TIN No. 28790240534 from CTO, Tarnaka Circle, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. V. KRISHNAIAH

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI CHITNENI.VtDYASAGAR RAO

¶18

(SPL. P.P. FOR ACB

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANI'HOSH^REDDY CRL.R.C.No.ll 24 0F 2019

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This criminal revision case is directed against the^orderdated 28.08.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.370 of 2019 in C.C.No.7 of^{2014,on the} file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB^Cases-cum- IV-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,^{Hyderabad, wherein} the said application filed by the petitioner herein^underSection 91 Cr.P.C for sunrmoning the docutnents^pertaining to^M/s Shri Khargandi Diary Products Ltd., fi'om CTO,^{.l'arnaka Clircle.} Hyderabad, was dismissed.

¶23

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for first respondent. Perused the record.

¶24

The petitioner/accused IS facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 7, I I and l3⁽²⁾ read^with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 06.08.2012, he visited the shop of Shri Mahaveer Jain (L.W.l) for conducting special audit and assessment and for the said purpose, he demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- from Mr.Jain for sending a favourable

¶25

¶26

audit report to the^{Deputy Commissioner,Charminar Division'} The petitioner made^{repeatedcalls to Mr.Jain and insistedhim for} payment of bribe. Mr.Jain^{approached the ACB officialsanda trap} was laid against the^{petitioner. After completionof investigation,} the Inspector of^{Police,ACB, City Range-Ifiled chargesheet} against the^petitioner.

¶27

When the matter^{was coming up for cross-examination of} P.W.l, the petitioner^{filed an application beforethe courtbelow} under Section 9l^{Cr.P.Crequestingthe Court to summon the} documents viz.,^{"Notice of detenting the goodsat check post} (form-610) issued by the then DCTO-Lil,^{MehdipatnamCircle} dt.t4.12.2011 along^{with LR copy. FormVATD3, consignment} challan and other^{relatedpapers which were transferredfromthe} CTO, Mehdipatnam^{Circle,Hyderabadto the CTO, TarnakaCircle} vide Rc.No.ACTO^{(lNT)/5/2011dt.22'12'2011"'The leamed} Special Public^{Prosecutor appearingfor the respondent-State} inter alia opposed^{the petitionstating that the petitionerwas given} opportunity during^{the course of investigationto submit his} explanation. In^{his explanation, the petitioner faited to mention} anything about the^{file pertaining to CTO,TarnakaCircle'}

¶28

¶29

Hyderabad and that it is only^{an afterthoughtto call for the file} pertaining to IWs Shri Khargandi^{Diary ProductsLtd., and that} both the firms are different^{and the complainant hasnothingto do} with Mis Shri Khargandi Diary^{Products Ltd'}

¶30

The leamed Principal Special^{Judge, after consideringthe} contentions of both sides^{and after going through the record,} dismissed the said application^{holding that the petitioner failed to} explain the relevance as to how^{the proposeddocument is} necessary to the case, except^{saying that the proposed documentis} necessary to establish his^defence.

¶31

As per the provisions of Section^{91 Cr.P.C., the accused is} also entitled to file an^{application to call for any documentfor the} purpose of.trial and it cannot be restricted^{only to the documents on} which the prosecution relies. It is mandatory^{that whoever filesan} application has to^{give the details of the documentand hasto} explain the reasons and relevancy^{for disposal of the casebefore} the court. The^{powers underSection91 Cr.P.Care merely} procedural in nature and the court may lor^{reasons to be recorded} can issue walrant for^{production of the documents.}

¶32

¶33

Coming to the facts of the present case, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner filed an application for summoning the documents refened to above and they are not at all relevant to the case. As seen from the record, the petitioner failed to mention anything about the file pertaining to CTO, Tarnaka Circle. The firm which is refened by the petitioner is different from the firm of the de facto complainant (L.W.1). Apart from the above, the petitioner had not explained as to how the said document is relevant and necessary to establish his defence. Further, the leamed counsel for the petitioner was also not able to establish the same before the trial Court. The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion and dismissed the application. The impugned order does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional^{jurisdiction.}

¶34

In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.

¶35

Pending miscellaneous petitions, ifany, stand closed.

¶36

\ To,

¶37

SD/.CH.VENKATESHWARULU DEPUTY REGIqTRAR ,TRUE COPY// seqrffirrcea

¶38

The Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases cum lV Additional Chief Judge, ^^{City C^ivil Co-urt, Hyderabad, HyderabadDistrict.(wlth records, if any)} 2. One CC to Sri P. V. Krishnaiah. Advocate IOPI.JCI 3, Two CCs to Sri. Chitneni.Vidyasagar Rao,'SC forhCe the Special^{public prosecutor,} High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶39

Two CD Copies

¶40

One Spare Copy gbr -NK\ -.2-

¶41

HIGH COURT

¶42

DATED: 1510612022

¶43

HE STA .'?
-<br>^
o 2 O AUE 2O??
L)

¶44

ORDER

¶45

CRL.R.C.N o.1 124 of 201 9

¶46

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE @ %* 7p\

M. Vijay Kumar v. The State Acb

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M. Vijay Kumar v. The State Acb

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vanga Devakrupa Vijay Krian Vs D. Kavitha

Gourireddigari.sridhar reddy Vs State of Telangana

Naga Kumari , Lakshmi Kumari Vs P. Bhaskar Reddy and Another

K.Sudhakar Goud Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp

E.Ashwathama Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

Kandipati Ravi Vs Kandipati Vijaya Lalitha and Another