Allowed

Kota Narasimha Rao and another v. Kota Venkata Krishna and 5 others

Telangana HC8 Nov 2022CRLRC/35/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court (Telangana) allowed a criminal revision under Section 397 and 401 CrPC against an order dismissing a petition for condonation of delay. The court held that a short delay of 51 days required a liberal approach.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28.08.2019 in Crl.M.P. No.644 of 2019 was set aside, and the delay in preferring the criminal appeal is condoned. Petitioners to pay Rs. 1,000 as costs.

Kota Narasimha Rao and another Vs Kota Venkata… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

[^321s ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶8

¶9

¶10

CRIMI NALR EVIS loN CASE NO: 3s oF 2020

¶11

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cd.p.C against the Judgment in crr'Mp No.644 0f 2019 in crr.A.No. of 2019 0n the fire of the court of the Principar sessions Judge, Khammam, dated 2,rogr2o.rg preferred against the order in cc No.162 0f 2011 0n the fire of the courl of the Assistant sessions Judge, Sathupalli dated 20 lO3/20 1 9.

¶12

7 BEI'WEIIN: l. Kota Narasimha Rao Sio Venkat Rao Aged, 49 years, Occ: Agriculture Rio Dendukuru Village of Madhira Mandal \ Khammam District ') Kota Srinivasa Rao S/o Veril<at Rao Aged 52 years, Occ; Agriculture R/o Dendukuru Village of Madhira Mandal Khammam district. ..Petitioners/ Appellants. And Kota Venkata Krishna S/o Anjaneyulu Aged 46 years, Occ; Business Wo Gunturu N/o Dendukuru villagc, Marlhira Mandal Khamrram district 2 Cherukuri Vishinder Rao S/o Sitaramaiah, Aged 55 years, Occ; Agriculture R/o Dendukuru village, Madhira Mandal Khammam district 3 Pamrnidi Krishna S/o I{anurnantha Rao Aged 39 years, Occ; Business. R/o Dendukuru village,' If4n61.,;* 114*6 , I I Khammam district t \

¶13

^1 @) .1 I 4 Cherukuri^{Naresh S/o Subbalfao} Aged 36^{ycars, Occ; Agrl} J'\ R/o Dendukuru village,^{Malhira Mandal} Khamnram district 5 Cheruktrri^{Venkata KrishnaS/o SubbaRao} { Aged 31^{years, Occ Business} PJo Dendukuru^{village,Madhira Mandal} I Khamrnam district l 6 The State ol^{Telangana rcp. byPublic Prosecutor,} t Uigh Court atHydeiabad ' ' "Respondents L

¶14

This petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Shaik Madar, Advocate for the petitioners and of the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.6 and of Sri M.Kiran Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

(

(

THE, HONOUITAI}I,E DIT. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶21

CRIMINAL REVISION CASI,l, No.35 of 2020

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners/ ajlpellants aggrieved by order dated 28.08.2019 in Crl.M.P. No.644 of 2019 in unnumbered Crl.A. No. of 2019 on the file of Principat Sessions Judge, Kharnmam, in dismissing the petition filed by them for condonation of delay in preferring the appea[.

¶24

The case of the petitioners was that aggrieved by the judgment dated20.03.2019 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sathupalli in CC No.162 of2011 acquitting the respondents I to 5 for the offences uirder Sections 147,345 and 324 read with 149 IPC, the petitioners, who were the de facto complainant and the injured, prefened the appeal The judgment was pronounced on 20.03.2019. The appeal oirght to have been filed within 30 days i.e. on or before 19.04.2019, birt they preferred the appeal with a delay of 5l days and prayed to cbndone the delay.

¶25

l)r CRR.I ( !lr\ !, r5 (11 l0lrr

¶26

The lcspondents I to 5 flled courltcr^{submittingthat the} petitioncrs and two others attempted to take^{away the life of the} respondents and committed^{an offence punishable under Section307} read with 34 IPC. The same^{was tried} by^{the AssistantSessions} Judge, Sathupalli vide SC^No.393 of^{2012.As a counter blast to the} same, the petitioners filed a^{false caseagainst the respondents I to 5 in} collusion with respondent^{No.6and the trial court acquittedboth the} cases. The appeal was filed only to^{harassthe respondents,as the wife} of the l " respondent won the^{GramPanchayatelections twice} consecutively and the supporter of^{the petitionershad lost the same} and unable to digest the defeat, they^{were filing the false cases.The} petitioners failed to explain the day^{to day delay as required under law} and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶27

Considering the^{pleadingsofboth the partiesand upon hearing} both the counsel, the leamed Principal^{SessionsJudge, Khammam} dismissed the petition observing^{that the reason given by the} petitioners lhat they suffered with^{sunstrokewithopt filing any} medical prescriptions to show that^{therewas seriousillnesson account} of the sunstroke, did not appear^{to be bonafide and that as the conduct}

¶28

D,^(;RR..l ('' l,J ,. li,,t l(lll,

¶29

::-l::

¶30

¶31

of the parties^{wouldshowthat the criminalproceedingswere being} resorted to settle the^{politicalscores, considered that the delay was not} properly explained and dismissed^{the petition.}

¶32

Aggrieved by the same,^{the petitioners-appellants preferredthis} revision contending^{that the court below erred in not noticing that} there was no abnormal^{delayas in the judgment relied by the court} while dismissing^{the petition. The court below ened in not following} the .^{established principte that the courts should take a liberal,} pragmatic and^{justice oriented approach while dealing with the} applications for^{condonationofdetay.The petitionerswere} agriculturists^{and residents of a remotevillage and it was peak} summer, due to^{which theysuffered sunstroke and they could not} engage counsel^{to prefer the appealagainst the acquittal judgment'} The court below^{ought to have exercisedits discretionfor condoning} the delay of few^{days and prayed to set aside the order dated} 28.08.2019passedinCrl.MPNo.644of2019inunnumberedcriminal appeal on the^{file of the PrincipalSessionsJudge, Khammam'}

¶33

Perused the record.^{As the petitionersare noneother thanthe} de facto complainant^{and the injured and they were aggrievedby the}

¶34

::J:: l)'^(iRR.r ( rl!. {, li,n l0l(,

¶35

acquittal of rcsllon(lcnts I to 5 by the trial coun for^{the offences under} Sections 141 , 345,324 rcitd with t49 IPC and sought^{lo prefer an} appeal and that there was delay olonly a shorl duration^{ol'(51)daysin} preferring the appeal, the lower appellate court ought to^have condoned the delay. In the^judgment relied by the^{lower appellate} v court in E,sha Bhattarcharjee N{anaging Committec of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others^{(Civil Appeal} Nos.8l83-81t14 of 2013) also it was held that there^{was a distinction} between inordinate delay and delay ofshort duration^{or few days. As} the doctrine o1' prejudice would be^{attractedwhen there was an} inordinate delay and the delay of short duration^{needsno strict} approach but a liberal approach, it is considered^frt to^allowthe revision by setting aside the impugned order.

¶36

7 . In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed on condition of petitioners/appellants^paying costs of^{Rs. 1,0001 (Rupees} one thousand only) to the High Court^{LegalServicesCommittee,} Hyderabad within a period often⁽¹⁰⁾ days^from the^{dateofreceipt} of a copy of this order, and the order^{dated 28.08.2019 passedin} Crl.M.P. No.644 of 2019^passed in^{unnumbered CriminalAppeal}

¶37

t)r Cl(R^I (',1,. ,, li.l llrl(r

¶38

¶39

No.-of 2019 by the Principal Sessions^{Judge, Khammam' is set}

¶40

aside and the delay in^pref-ening the criminal^{appcal is condoned.} Miscellaneous Petitions,^pending iI^{any, shall stand closed.}

¶41

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

Sd/-I.NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6B SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To 1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam. 2. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Sathupally. 3. One CC to Sri Shaik Madar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 5. Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy Kj .

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/1^'l /2022

ORDER

'.,6AFd^
.:-<br>7 ?Z <br>5(-) ?3 t.l0 'i 2m
i3
-<br>.)[SpAi{t 9

¶49

CRLRC.No.35^{of 2020}

¶50

ALLOWING^{THE CRL.R.C.}

¶51

B*t6,'_./ y.

Kota Narasimha Rao and another v. Kota Venkata Krishna and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kota Narasimha Rao and another v. Kota Venkata Krishna and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malipatlollta Panduranga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Cassandra Mendonca, Mumbai., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

M/s Viswa Bharathi Mutually Aided Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs G. Janaki Ramulu and another

Kammati Rajender Vs Smt. Kammati Vinoda

Bakaram Amarender Reddy Vs Suresh and Another

Mr. Jagmohan Marwah Vs M/s. Equentis Capital Private Limited