The Hon'ble High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal revision case filed against the sentence confirmed by the Sessions Judge for non-prosecution, noting the petitioner's failure to appear despite notice.
The criminal revision case is dismissed for non-prosecution. Miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 822 OF 2016
Criminal Revision Case filed Under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C againstthe Judgment dated.25.02.2016 passed in Cr|.A.1032 of 20'l 5 on file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad confirming the Judgment dated'19.11.20'15 in C.C. No.672 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad.
Between:
K. Sudhakar Goud, S/o. Babaiah Patel, Age. 55 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No.7-1-31 1, Balkampet, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad.
...Petitio ner/Accused
AND
The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., Police Station S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature, at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
...Complainant/Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Counsel for the Respondent: The PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(T.S)
The Court made the following: ORDER
Il()()t I \lll l. Slll.lt SII(ll .S'\I'llOSII ltl l)l)</sup> (Iil .Il\Al, llE/lSlON(lASF. No.t't.]2(l'F 210l(
oRt)r rr
'l'his Cri nirral Rcvision casc is lilcd againsr tlrc .j rdgrncnt datcd 15.0l.ltll6 passcd in Crl.A.No. l0l2 of'l0l: orr thc' lllc o1iVletlopolitan S,,-ssions .ludgc, I{r'dcrabad conllrrnir ! lhc .cntencc au'ardcd injr dgrncnt datcd 19.11.2015 in C.('.Nc,.t,,'l ol'1013 on thc lLlc ol III Additional('lricl' Mctropolitr r Mr gistrate, I lvderahad.
No rcprr ;cntntion lbr tlrc 1'rctitioncr
On carli, r occasion it was rcprcscntcd that lc:rr'rt:d corrnscl for the petitioncr had cxpircd and noticc was ordcrccl c lrc i.sucd to the pctitioner'l'hough nolicc rvas scnt by thcrlcgistr y, nonc appeared.'hc pctitioner was convictcd by the trial('ourt in C.C.No.672( f 2013 to pay finc ol'Rs. 1000i- in d,:larrlt to sufl-er sirnplc irrprir,)nlrcnt fbr a pcriod of two rnonths cr thc olfence punishablc ur rlcr Scction 323 rcad with Scction 34 ll'}C. Against which thc ap rcal was prclcrrcd in(lrl.A.No. l0-i- ol' 201 5 and
Iearned Scssions Judgc conlirrncd thc trial ('ourt judgrnent in
C.C.No.672 of 20 l3 dared 19.11.20 l5 and disrnissed rhe appeal.
I laving rcgard to thc Iacts and cit.c t-rrtl Stan ccs stated abovc,
thc Criminal [{evision casc is dismisscd lbr non-proscc ution.
As a sequel, thc misccllancous pctitions, il'any, pcnding in the
Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/. A.V.S.S.C.SHARMA DEP+ITY REGISTRAR ( i<r--
SECTION OFFICER
To,
q,
(
HIGH COURT
DATED:15/06/2( l2
ORDER
CRLRC,No.B22 i 2016
,<:f=$*
('i'' ,z t{,,rt ttil il
\i, il
'i3. . , ,'""r1/
DISMISSING T} E CRIMINAL REVISION CASE FOR I.I )<sup>.PFOSECUTION
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the pending criminal revision case should be allowed or dismissed.
The issue of representation by the petitioner in the current proceedings.
K. Sudhakar Goud
The State of Telangana
A. Santhosh Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
