Dismissed

S. Ganeshan v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC8 Feb 2023CRLRC/1582/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a second Criminal Revision Case filed by the petitioner against an order relating to his discharge in a CBI trial. The High Court held the revision infructuous as the underlying main case was already disposed of. Pending applications stood closed.

What did the court decide?

No relief; Criminal Revision Case dismissed as infructuous in the main trial.

S. Ganeshan Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ss ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1582 oF 2009

¶7

criminal Revision case fired Under Sections 3gr & 401 of cr.p.c against the order dated 16-06-2009 made in crr.M,p.No. 1432 of 2oo7 in c.c.No.2g oi 2oo5 on the file of the Speciat Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

S. Ganeshan, S/o^{p.subramanaiah,} 54 years, Charted Accountant, previously worked as Chief Manaoer. Andhra Bank, nasntrapiini no";, S;";;;;r;d;;il; [':j^ ]::^?0,^6._t 202i^{Bhasyasree npartmentilu. Njo.1 2} r 3_6as_A. Lane-2, r\agarjuna Nagar, I aranaka, Secunderabad.

¶10

AND

¶11

...petitioner/Accused-1

¶12

State of A.P , rep. by Spl. public prosecutor for CBI Cases., Hyderabad, High (.:ourt.

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

CRLRCMP. NO: 2191 0F 2009

¶15

Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the peiifidn, the High court may -oe plealed. to stay all further proceedings incruding the appearancL of the petitioner in CC.No- 29 of 2OOS on the fite oitre Spt. .l-uage tbi CBt Cases, iyd;;;b;;: pending Crl.R.C.,

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. KIRANMAyI, Advocate rep. Ms. ,.tO*nFarlHi

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: SRt N. NAGENDRAM ( SpL pp FOR CBt )

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE E ONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NA(IA.RJUN cRIl!i INAL REVISION CASE No. 1582 o:i 1i!OCr9

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This;⁽ l imina-1 Revision Case is filed bv _ lt e reuslon petitiont:r - itccused No. 1 aggrieved by the o r.de r dated 16.O6.2O(t9 ir Crl.M.p.No.t432 of 2OOT in O.i_:.No.29 of 2005 on th r file of learned Special Judge for (.)BI Cases, Hyderaba,l, rvherein the petition filed b1. 1h,: r-evision petitloner r nder Section 239 of the Code c,t. Criminal Procedure tr clischarge him u,as dismissed

¶22

Ms.llir urmayi, learned counsel rt:presenting Ms.D. Sa,1;e,:tha Reddy, learned counsel .n rer::.rd for the revision prlti r-i()ner has submitted that the tria. (ior,.t has completed t. Le trial and also disposed of the rr:.airr case, wherein thr revrslon petitioner accused l',,]o. I was convicted lbr the offence alleged against him

¶23

In l'iew c,f the above submission and since, thr: main itself has al eady been disposed of, the very purpose of filing the <:ri ninal revision case to set aside cr.rler dated 16.06.2009) :n Crl.M.p.No.t432 of 2OOZ rn C.O.No.29 of

¶24

¶25

-rr

¶26

2o05 on the^{file of 1e arned Special Judgc for CBICases'} Hyderabad^{is defeated and therebythe criminal revisionc} case has^{become infructuous and liable to be dismissed'}

¶27

4 Accordingly,^{the CriminalRevision Case is dismissed}

¶28

as infructuous.

¶29

As a sequel,^{pending miscellaneousapplications'if}

¶30

any, shall^{stand closed'}

¶31

Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO FFICER

To,

1- The Special^{Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad District'}

¶36

Two CCs^{to Sri N. NAGENDRAM,SPL PP FORCBI , HighCourtforthe} State of^{Telanganaat Hyderabad(OUT)}

¶37

One^{CC to SRI D. SANGEETHAREDDY, Advocate [OPUCI}

¶38

Two CD^CoPies

¶39

kam

¶40

NJB \ >--

HIGH COIJRT

DT.DNR,J

DATED:01i10212023

. .:.
2 ii irli ?i]23

¶45

ORDER

¶46

CRLRC.ltft \1582 of 2009

¶47

THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE ISi I)ISMISSED AS INFRU }TUOUS

¶48

-L) @.1:^{i I}

S. Ganeshan v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Ganeshan v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karra Ravinder Reddy, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and 9 Others

Y.Raghuram , Vs C.Rajendra Kumar and Another

Naresh Kumar Vs R. Suresh Babu, Neredmet, R.R. District, and Anr.

A. Ramalingamma Vs T. Bheeema Goud and Another

V.Raghuveer Reddy, Vs a.Prathap Reddy and Another

D.Inna Reddy, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and Another