Dismissed

Sri N.v.Sudhakar v. a.R.Rao

Telangana HC20 Jul 2023CRLA/653/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the appellant's petition for condonation of delay of 335 days in filing a criminal appeal and subsequently dismissed the criminal appeal itself. The court held that vague explanation regarding an advocate's delayed filing did not constitute sufficient cause.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed. Criminal Appeal No.653 of 2023 and I.A. No.2 of 2010 dismissed with costs.

Sri N.v.Sudhakar Vs a.R.Rao — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶4

I.A. NOS. 1 AND 2 OF 2O1O IN/AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 653 OF 2023

¶5

Crl.Appeal Under Section 378 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 13-07-2009 in C.C. No. 415 of 2008 on the file oftheCourtof the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri N.V.Sudhakar, S/o, Narayan Setty, aged about 50 years, Occu. Business, R/o,H.No. 12-l 1-206/21,SBH Colony, Jamai Osmania, Hyderabad, ., APPELLANT

¶8

AND

¶9

A.R.Rao, S/o,Late A.Rajagopal Rao, aged about 55 years, Occu. Managing director, M/s, Mikroflow filters Pvt Ltd, Office at. 3-4-495, 111rd Floor, Barkathpura, Hyderabad.

¶10

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad Respondents

¶11

l.A NO: 1 OF 201O(CRLAMP. NO: 1791 OF 2010)

¶12

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of (335) days in presenting the Crl.A., against the Judgment of the Court of learned XIX Addl. Chief Metropolitan tvlagistrate, Namapally, Hyderabad in Calendar and Judgment dated 13.07.2009 passed in C.C.No.415 of 2008.

¶13

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2010(CRLAMP. NO: 31003 OF 2010)

¶14

Petition under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to appeal against acquittal against the Judgment of the Court of learned XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , Nampally, Hyderabad, in calendar and Judgment dt. 13{7-2009 in C.C.No. 415 of 2008.

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. G. SURESH GOUD

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: NONE APPEARED

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent NO.2: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

¶20

THE H,)NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,SUROI{D],R

¶21

¶22

I.A.Nos.1 & 2 OF 2OlO in/,tnd (:RIMINAL APPEAL No.653 ol 2o2il

¶23

,{:r JUDGME NT Iii if i',,: I 1 . The app :llant liled the present appe,rl, hor,r'ever with a delay of 335 ,lays and prayed to condone the <lelay by filing I.A.No.1of 2010

I I

LI;

Effii

In view rf the judgment reported in Syant Dondiga o. State of Andlra Pradeshr, thc Registry is lireclerl to number the appeal.

¶30

The reason given by the appellant for delay :n filing of the ap peal is thal he had given the lower Court pape rs to an Advocate by nz.me Sri R.E.C. Vidyasagar for hling the rrppeal in the High Court. But he could not file the appeal as, he was hospitalized fcr several months. As such, the papr:rs were brought back fi'om the said Advocate and later appeal v/as flled.

¶31

The details of the said Advocate are not gven. Vaguely ng that the Advocate, to whom lower^(lourt Fap,srs were a$v-en, could not hle the appeal in time, is not a sufficient cause

¶32

.; .i

¶33

'to condone the delay.

¶34

'^{zorT (2) ALD (crr.)! 84}

¶35

¶36

Accordingly, the prayer for of 335 days in presenting denied and i1: ifi *. I.A.No.1/2010 (Crl.A.M.P.No Consequently, Crl.A.No.653 a an d tion I.A.No.2 of 2O1O are also dismissed.

¶37

Miscelianeous applications, if any pending in this criminal appeal, shall stand closed.

¶38

Sd/- K. SAILESHI //TRUE^COPY// DEPUTY-BEGISTRAR(tD SECTION^OFFICER

¶39

¶40

1.The lXl Additional^{ChiefMetropolitanMagistrate.'Nampally'Hyderabad'.} i. t-,JJ'cc" t.^{Public Prosecutol,Higtr coJrt for the state of Telangana at} Hvderabad^(OUT)

¶41

s. oill"bCt"^{5nr.'6 sunEsuGouD Advocate [oPUc]} 4. Two CD CoPies

¶42

8nc,.

¶43

HIGH COURT DATED:2OlO7l2O1'3

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

I.A. NOS. 1 AND 2^rf,F 2010

¶46

ln/ And

¶47

CRL.APPEAL No.653 of 2023

¶48

:--
-4
'/6r' E La/,:\k
.i"> ,\7*
s}"
a
\ LIJ
ds) ()
q, l
h L)//
€ ,3, -,7
oCf{
g't

¶49

DISMISSING TtlIi C'RI-.APPt]N L

¶50

.PNU.
a tol>3,

Sri N.v.Sudhakar v. a.R.Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N.v.Sudhakar v. a.R.Rao

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

N.Rajesh Vs Smt. N.Rekha

Shaik Latheef Sab Vs The State of Telangana

Khaja Aijaz Vs Aliya Sultana

Gandi Kondalu Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Kudula Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Patnam Kistaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.