Allowed

Rayapuram Sharadha, Warangal Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC11 Jul 2022CRLRC/640/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court allowed the petition challenging a notice issued under the Prohibition Act. The Court held that the impugned notice was invalid as it lacked a prior inquiry and failed to disclose essential details regarding the alleged breach of bond, necessitating its set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceeding/notice in MC.No.80/2016 dated 12.02.2016 is set aside.

Rayapuram Sharadha, Warangal Dt., Vs the State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT +FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 640 OF 2016

¶6

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Order dated 12-2-2016 Passed in M C.No. 80 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Executive lvlagistrate and Tahsildar, Sangem, Warangal District .

¶7

Between:

¶8

Rayapuram Sharadha, Wo. Rajkumar,aged about 27 years. Occ: Coolie, R/o Gavrcherla Village, Sangam Mandal, Warangal District.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

The State Of Telangana, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and for the state of AP., Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

¶13

CRLRCMP. NO: 889 OF 2016

¶14

Petition under Section 482 Cr PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the operation oi the order daled 12-2-2016 in tr.4C.No. 80 of 2016 passed by the Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Sangem, Warangal District, pendinq disposal of the above Crl.RC.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. A PRABHAKAR RAO

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR^(TS)

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

TI{E HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH RT]DDY RL.R.C.No.640 F 2016

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

l'his criminal revision case is directed again:;t the proceedingsinotice in MC.No.80/2016 dated 12.02.2016 of the []xecutir''c Magistrate & Tahsildar, Sangem, Warangal Distrir:t

¶21

). Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant l)ubl ic Prosccutor.

¶22

A perusal ol the impugned proceedings/notice would show that fbr violation of'the conditions of security bond given by the petitionr'r. thc said bond was fbrleited and she was required to pay' a pcnaln' o1- Rs. I lakh or to show cause to th: said Executive iVlagistratc u ithin ser en w,orking days as to why payment should n()t be en fi)rccd against her.

¶23

.1. l-earncd counsel tbr the petitioner submits that the Leamed lvlagistratc has not conducted enquiry as contemplated under larv allcging that the prtitioner had committed breacl^ ol bond rhereby committing ofl'ence punishable under the provisions ol thc I'rohibition nct and the said order is not sul;tainable in law

¶24

¶25

He lurthel submits that no enquiry was conducted with regard to involvement of the petitioner in the crime and when and^,,vhere the olfence occurred and the said details are not mentioned so also the tirne ol seven days mentioned in the notice is not a sulllcient time and without affording sufficient time to offer her explanation, the alleged notice came to be issued.

¶26

l-earned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that thcre is no illcgality in issuing the impugned notice by the Erccutive Magistrate and the petitioner was given opportunity' to shou causc rvithin seven working days, but he failed to do so or pa\ the penalty. She, therefore, prays that the revision case nral' be disnrissed.

¶27

[n the instant case, the impugned proceeding/noticc \ AS issued holding that the petitioner committed breach ol thc securiti bond and, therefore, she is liable to pay the penaltl ol'Rs.I lakh^or' shorv cause within seven working days as to why pa1*nrcnt ol'the sanre should not be enlorced against her and whv shc should not sent to irrprisonment. The order does not indicate as to ir hcthet' an1 prior enquiry was made for asceftaining thc truth about the

¶28

¶29

¶30

involvement ol the petitioner in the crime. Further, the notice also did not disclose further details with regard to the source of inlbrrnation. quantity ol such liquor, if any, place, cate and tirne ol alleged oflcnce etc. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the proceed ing/notice was issued without conducting proper enquiry and theretbre, the same is liable to be set aside, as rightly contended b1' learned counsel tbr the petitioner.

¶31

[n tlrc result. the criminal revision case is allowed setting

¶32

aside the proceeding/notice in MC.No.8012016 date,l 12.02.2016 of the F.xecutir e Magistrate & Tahsilar, Sangem, Warangal Distr.ct.

¶33

Pending miscellaneous pctitions, ifany, stand closed.

¶34

¶35

SD/.I.V.S.S,C.S.M.SARMA DEPUW REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER^t-1 )

¶36

To,

¶37

The Executive^{Magistrate and Tahsildar, Sangem, Warangal} District.(with records^{if anY)}

¶38

The Station^{HouseOfficer, Prohibition& Excise Statior, Wardhanrapet'} ,Warangal^distict.

¶39

Two CCs^{to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Statt: of Telangana'at} Hyderabad IOUT]

¶40

One CC to SRl. A^{.PRABHAKAR RAO Advocate [OP[JC]}

¶41

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶42

One Spare^CoPY

;,-

CI)t-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 '110712022

ORDER

CRLRC.No.640 of 2016

.$.
$
.l

Al-LOwlNG l'l Irr CRL.R.C

¶52

@x*-
\b<br>

Rayapuram Sharadha, Warangal Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayapuram Sharadha, Warangal Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

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

Yogesh Karia, Mumbai and Anr. Vs Stn House Offr., R.R.Dist and 9 Others

Gaddam Srinivas Yadav, Hyderabad., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

M/S. Red Fab Pvt.Ltd , Hyd and Five Others Vs M/S. Goyal Steel Enterprises, Hyd and Another

Kallu Sreedhar Reddy, Nalgonda Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Smt. Banoth Chinni, Warangal Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

M/S.Vil Media Pvt.Ltd., Banjara Hills and 4 Othrs., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp and and Anr.