The High Court of Telangana dismissed the petitioner's Criminal Revision. The Court noted that the Magistrate's finding regarding the petitioner's lack of possession of land was contrary to material on record but held this was the sole matter requiring interference, leading to the dismissal of the revision.
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.
3251 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADI
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENOER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 300 OF 2018
Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.p.C., against the ' Judgmentmadein R.c.No.06of 2015, dated 30.10.2017 onthefireof thecourtof the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, piohibition & Excise, ttlahabubnagar. Between:
Byagarl Naganna, S/o Chandraiah, Caste: SC (Mala), R/o Hanwada village and mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.
Petitioner/ compiainant
--VtrRSUS-
1. The State of Telangala,
Through Station House Officer,
Hanwada P.S, Mahabubnagar,
Represented by The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad.
...1"t respondent
2. Thimma Reddy,
Divisional Forest Oflicer, Mahabubnagar,
Now work Conservator of Forest at Adilabad, /
Telarrga-na. j
3. Mahendar Goud,
Forest Rarge Officer, Mahabubnagar.
4. Prasad,
Forest Section Officer Mahabubnagar,
5. K. Sudarshan Reddy,
l/C Divisional Forest Officer,
Mahabubnagar.
2nd to sth respondents/Al to ,{4
i:
i I
Counsel for thePetitioner:SRl. K.S. MURTHY Counsel for theRespondent No.1: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for theRespondent No.2: SRI P' SRI HARSHA REDDY The Courtmadethe following:ORDER
/
Crl.R.C. N0,300 of Z0lE
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIM INAL R,EVISION CASE No.300 ()F 018
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") by the petitioner-complainant, aggrieved by the order dated 30-10-2017 passed in R.C.No.G of 2015 on the fite of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (prohibition and Excise), Mahabubnagar.
r-
/'
Crl.R.C. No.300of 2018
2
report stating thatno case was made out against the forest officials.
Crl.R.C. No.300 of 2018
3
W/'
KI
W
not be specifically demarcated, the learned Magistrate found
that petitioner was not in possession. As per the said finding, the learned Magistrate findings are contrary to the material placed on record. However, the other findings of learned Magistrate need no interference and the present revision case is
liable to be dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending, shall stand closed.
SD/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUW REGISTRAR (fi //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
To, 1 The Judicial Magistrateof FirstClass ,Prohibition& Excise, Mahabubnagar 2 fwo CCs to theFublicProsecutor, High Court forthe State of Telanganaat Hvderabad, [OUTI ohe CC to Snt. x.s. Ii]URTHYAdvocate [OPUC]
4 one cc to sRl.P. sRlHARSHA REDDY,Advocate[oPUC] 5 Two CD Copies CHR .V \
\
e
-.,^--ilr&d*&"dr{&5i{&iaair
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:1410612023
ORDER
CRLRC.No.300 of 2018
{ 1r€ STATE oA
9
}\N NB o
1t
I
e A'! c<br>.::_: i.1
DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C. WITHOUT COSTS
@-&l
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding of the Magistrate that the petitioner was not in possession of land, contrary to material on record, warrants interference in a Criminal Revision.
Whether the lower court's dismissal of the protest petition in a prosecution for trespass can be set aside in revision.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Byagarl Naganna
The State of Telangana
Thimma Reddy
Mahendar Goud
Prasad
K. Sudarshan Reddy
K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
