Allowed

Shaik Latheef Sab v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Jul 2023CRLRC/1963/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a criminal revision filed against an order refusing to discharge accused persons falsely accused of fabricating entries in a pass book. Finding that key witnesses admitted the property was ancestral and handwriting analysis supported this, the Court held the prosecution case was weak and allowed the revision, setting aside the lower court order.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is allowed; the proceedings in C.C.No.151 of 2017 against petitioners are set aside; an interim stay is granted on proceedings in that case.

Shaik Latheef Sab Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s1 ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY^{OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE.NO: 1963 OF 201a

¶7

Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the Order made in Crl.M.P.No.127 of 2018 in C.C.No.151 of 2Ol7 (old C.C.No.63 of 2OL7) dated 05-07-2018 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Suryapet.

¶8

Between l

¶9

Shaik Latheef Sab, S/o. Imam Sab, Occ:Agricu ltu re, R/o. Anantharam Village. Penpahad Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶10

Shaik Jani Pasha, S/o. Latheef Sab, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. Anantharam Village, Penpahad Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶11

, 3. Shaik lani Begum, Wo. Latheef, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Anantharam Village, ) Penpahad Mandal. Nalgonda District.

¶12

...PETTTTONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State^of Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COM PLAINANT

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2O1a

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to STAY of all further^proceedings including appearance of the^{petitioners in} CC.No.151 of 2Ol7 on the file of the Court of the Addl. Judicial First^Class Magistrate at Suryapet,^pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case.

¶18

counsel for the Petitioners :sRI A. PRABHAKAR RAO

¶19

Counsel for the Sole Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE H( NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K,SUREI'IDER

¶22

CRIMI {AL REVISION CAS^{E No.1963 Ol: 20:[8}

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Aggrieved t 'r the Order dated 05.07.2018^{passed n Crl,M.P.No.127} of 2018 in C.C.Nc 117 of 2017 on^{the file of AdditilnalJur,lici;rl First Class} Magistrate, Surya let refusing to discharge, the^{petitioners;/ac,-usedNos.1} to 3 have filed tht^present Criminal Revision Case.

¶25

Heard Per ts:d the record

¶26

The case ol ttre^prosecution is that the^petiticner hk:.1 is the father and petitioner I'lc , 2 and 3 are son and daughter of^peti:ion:r No.1.^In the Pass Book of tlre^petitioner No.1, two entries at li.l'os.^{13 and 14} were made whlc r pertain to Ac.1-28 gts of lard in S'r.Nr>.90/6 and Ac.2-09 gts. of la,d in Sy.No.90/6a On the basis of l.l'e cornplaint that the entries were f;rbricated, the^police have conduct:r: investigation. During the courrr: of investigation, the specimen si3t'atures of the Tahsildar namell Smt K.C.Prameela and the V.R,C). ramely Sri Mohammed Sayy; :l who are the witnesses in the^{p,resent r:as(l} were sent for the purpose ol examination to hand writing expert, to :;ive opinion on the signatures th, I were^found in the^{Pass Book} at^{:S.l'os.13and14.} After analysis, t re hand writing expert^gave an^oFr nicn that^on comparlson ;rnc a^{rr;rlysis, the signatures} in the^P;tssElool< w'ere^{that of}

¶27

¶28

Crl.RC.No.l963 20lt KS.J

¶29

Smt K.C.Prameela, Tahsildar and Sri Mohammed Sayyad, V,R.O. The police obtained specimen signatures and at the time of giving specimen signatures, both Tahsildar and V.R,O. have stated in writing that the said property mentioned at Sl.Nos.13 and 14 in the Pass Book were ancestral propefties which are devolved upon the petitioner No.1.

¶30

The case of the prosecution is that the entries at Sl.Nos.13 and 14 were fabricated. However, the evidence on record is that the signatures were made by the Tahsildar and the V.R.O. and they have admitted in writing at the time of giving specimen signatures that the properties are ancestral properties of petitioner No.1.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor objected to the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that it is a question of fact that has to be decided during the course of trial. If the case of the prosecution is that the signatures were fabricated, the same can only be decided after calling for the hand writing expert and cross-examining the hand writing expeft. Accordingly, the petition has to be dismissed.

¶32

In the present case, it is admitted by Smt K.C.Prameela, Tahsildar and Sri Mohammed Sayyad, V.R.O., that the properties mentioned at Sl.Nos.13 and 14 in the Pass Book of the petitioner No.l are ancestral properties. Further, the hand writing analysis shows that signatures were

¶33

( rl.llC.No. I96-1-2018 KS..I

¶34

¶35

appended by tt-re l-ahsildar and V.R.O.^{Noneof the irr.recients of the} provisions of S(rc1 31s 420, 468 aod 47t rlw 34 of IPC^ar e made out. 7. Accordingll ,^rlriminal Revision Case^{is allowt:danrl lhe proceedings} against the^{p€'tit ,)rlers/accusedNos.1} to 3^{in C.C'No1l:'1 rlf 2017 are}

¶36

hereby set aside:.

¶37

Miscellanerc .rs, Petitions/^pending if any, shall stancl^r:losr:d.

¶38

/ /rRUE^coPY / /

¶39

l;d/- T. sRrNrvAs CrEl)UI'Y REGISTRAR

¶40

lt) $ ECTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

The AdCl. I^{licialFirstCIass I'4agistrate at SLryape:'}

¶43

The:;tal-io^{r llouse Officer (S.H.O),PoliceStati()nPen:ahad,Nalgonda} D !strict.

¶44

One CC to^{SRIA. PRABHAKAR RAO,Advocate [OPU(]}

¶45

Two CC to PUBLIC^{PROSECUTOR,High Court frr the Siate ofTelangana} at Hvde-rl rtl. IOUT]

¶46

Two CD^{t:< ti,:s.}

STB

HIGH COU RT

DATED:t9 t07 /223

z'. '.
!.-".h
l:
.,
'i1 I]B [f8

¶54

ORDER

¶55

CRLRC.No,1963 of 2O18

¶56

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS AI LOWED 4 P w

¶57

Shaik Latheef Sab v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Latheef Sab v. The State of Telangana

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

Arpula Shiva , Arpula Shiva Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Chellu Sai Nishanth Vs The State of Telangana

Shanta Kumari Kommavarapu Vs The State of Telangana

N.Rajesh Vs Smt. N.Rekha

Khaja Aijaz Vs Aliya Sultana

Sidhur Raj Kiran Vs The State of Telangana