Dismissed

T. Venkata Siva Rao, v. Padala Tagore, and Another

Telangana HC13 Apr 2023CRLRC/349/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal revision filed by complainants challenging an order of acquittal in a case involving the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that remedies against an acquittal are limited to an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. By law, the High Court can only entertain a special leave application for appeal and not intervention. As there was no special leave, the revision filed under Sect

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is dismissed as not maintainable. The Registry is directed to close N.A. pending petitions of this type in the future.

T. Venkata Siva Rao, Vs Padala Tagore, and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL

¶3

I^{TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

¶5

. PRESENT

¶6

l,THE.HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA i'

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 349 OF 2010

¶8

;i;

¶9

Revision Case'filed undei Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment dated22.01.2O10'passed in CC.No. 1538 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ma'nuguru, Khammam District.

¶10

Between:

¶11

T. Venkata^-lsiva Rao, S/ot Veereselinga Sharma, Age: 49 years Occ: Employee in SC.Co.l-td., Rl/o Manuguru, Khammam District.

¶12

i ! ...PETITIONER I 1 Padala Tagbie, S/o J"humaritna Rao, Age: 34 years, Occ: Contractor, Rl/o H.No.21-85/1; Ayyappa Nagar, Palocha Town & Mandal, Khammam District.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

r p"titift ,;bi, s""tloi aaz r of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the'support of thd petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix up the an early date'for final hearing of this Crl.R.C.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner| :: Sri N. RAVI PRASAD
tl ., i li
It
Counsel for the Rebponddnt No.1 None appeared
:
counset ro. ir'," n"i"ponoJniruo., Ii.i PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
,i i lil. !. I
The Court mahe thb followrng : ORDER
;ri ': t
3I -! f II
.i1
:it
-.: .iir --:'. 1 tt
:,i I
ii ItttiI I
I
i
!I {FaeE '::^ I $'fi iI
:,
il :

¶17

HE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDiltr

¶18

!:R^{IMINALREVISION} CASE No.349 of 201^(:l

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Tl-is^(lri nincll Revision Cose is preferred, uncl()-seclions 39/ ond 40 cf .l .P.C, ogoinsl the judgmenl, dote:i 2,,)..01 .2OlO. possed in C C .No.l53B of 2006 on the f le ol he Judiciol Mogistrole of First Closs, Monuguru, Khornr. r rm Dislrict. ocquittir q res >on,lent No. 1 /occused f or lhe ,tffenr;e: pr-rnishoble under Ser:tirtn LlB of the Negotioble lnstrumerrts Ac..

¶21

As ogoi rs on order of ocquittol possed by o ,v1r:gir;lrote on o complrtir-t , r rn oppeol will lie only before lhr: Higt r.16111 un6ar Section 378 (a cf Cr.P.C.. bul not revision.

¶22

SuLr se,c or (4) of Seclion 3/B of Cr.p.C., whir:l-r de.ols with oppeol in ccrs< c f ocquittol, reods os under:

¶23

"lf su<:lr c n order of ocquittol is possecl i- ony cose instiluled rpr>n c:nrploinl ond the High Courl, on or <.rpplicotion mode to i br, 1 re comploinont in this beholf, gronts s:,(,)ciol leove

¶24

"\ )

¶25

¶26

lo oppeol from the order of ocquittol, the comploinont moy present such on oppeol lo the High Court".

¶27

Coming to the ombit of power of High Court under Section 401 of Cr.P.C.. the High Court in its revisionol power does not ordinorily interfere with judgments of ocquittor possed by rhe trior Court unless there hos been monifesl error of low or procedure. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 of Cr.p.C. mondotes thot the High Court sholl not converi o finding of ocquittol into one of conviction.

¶28

Hoving regord to the focl thot the revision petilioner/ comploinont insleod of opprooching this Court ond invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 392 ond 401 of Cr.p.C.. should hove preferred on oppeol os provided for under Section 378 (41 of Cr.P.C. since ogoinst on order of ocquittol on oppeol Iies but not o revision. Iherefore, the Regislry ought to hove rejected the revision ot the stote of numbering itself, however, it wos numbered in 2010 ond kept pending before this Court for l3 long yeors. ln this view of the molter, this revision is lioble to be dismissed os not mointoinoble.

¶29

¶30

The C rir rinol Revision Cose is occordinc;ly drs..rissed os not

¶31

mointoinob e. I:urther, the Registry is directe<l to t:l:e rrote of it

¶32

ond be c:ou1< u:; while numbering this lype of ,;oses ir-r fulure

¶33

N.4i:;cellc^'-t<:ous peliiions, if ony, pending, sholl ; , rnd closed

¶34

Sd/.8. SATYAVATHI DEI'I.ITY REGISTRAR

t //TRUE COPY//

(l];

S E,CTION OFFICER

To,

;

¶40

1. I he Regrstrar (Ju lir;ial) High Court for the State of Telange^rt:r

¶41

The Deputy Regir tr,ai, New Filing Section, High Court for^tlrr.' State^of Telangana, at tly lerabad. 1.

¶42

Thd Judiciai First Cla'ss Magistrate, at Manuguru, Khammar^District. ,: I

¶43

One CC to Sri N RAVi PRASAD, Advocate toPUCl i ili . t fi.

¶44

Two CCs tci the^F uLrlic Prosecutor, High Court for the State^{:,f Te'langanaat} Hyderabad.^(OU1 ) lr,{i

¶45

6 Two CD Copie; I a
1 I l:
Njb r\ l i |.
kam q II i.t
t i-[ I t:
n '+ t Y.
t .-i:1 L
I
f
1
I
!
i
I
i
!
I
i
.i :.
i:l I.t I
;ri l l
I
.,. I
lt; II i

HIGH COURT

PSS,J

DATE D : 1 310412023

77 r'lE
/.
i.
ls' I
]'
li'il..) il I ,uL ?ul
., 1...
.<br>h-,.-.-''

¶50

ORDER

¶51

GRLRC.No.3419 0f 2010

¶52

DISMISSING THE CItIi III,,IAL REVISION CASE

¶53

o *tl

T. Venkata Siva Rao, v. Padala Tagore, and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Venkata Siva Rao, v. Padala Tagore, and Another

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

Akula Mallesham Vs M.Secr.P.Laxmikantha Rao

G.Laxmi , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Anyalapu Linga Swamy , Lingaiah, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Swamy Vivekananda Swamy Educational Trust Vs S.G. Rayappa Raju

Kothawalli Raji Reddy Vs Mrs. Kanukala Sathemma

Dr. Dayanka Dukkipati Vs Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam