Dismissed

V. Suryanarayana Prabhakar Gupta, Hyderbad. v. Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, and Anr.

Telangana HC15 Feb 2023CRLRC/907/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Revision Case, the accused-petitioner sought to stay proceedings regarding a previous order allowing record of statements. The court found the revision case infructuous based on the petitioner's submission and dismissed the matter.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed as infructuous; pending matters closed.

V. Suryanarayana Prabhakar Gupta, Hyderbad. Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s9 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA'ATHYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY_ "' TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISIoNc ASE Noi907 0F 2010

¶7

Criminat Revision Case filed Under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.p.C against the order dated 23-04'2010 made in crr.M.p.No. 16 0f 2010in c.c.No.10f 2010 0n the fire of the court of the Additionar chief Metroporitrn-urf,"u",. for Triar of satyam Scam Cases, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

y--3i$:l,T#;ffi rPfAPtl4l<nE^{GUPTA,s/o. V. N Suryanarayana sresty} -ai M"dh,;;ia E il,;ll,'e3#,,'85ry'ir:31l3*:"'puter^{servic6s rto,' pbt} No

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

(56 RespondenUlOft Accused)

¶13

1 Enforcement Directorate, Govr Director,M,Nsri;;;-s;ii:i"fi,:1,::1'gi3i,.f"iElTEl,#,nli:,?r"#"

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

(Petitioner/petitioner)

¶16

2 The State, through C.B.l. Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENT

¶18

(1^st RespondenUComplainant)

¶19

¶20

I I I i I i i

¶21

CRLRCMP. NO: 1328 OF 2010

¶22

Petition under Section 482 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to the orders dated 23-04-2010 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 16 of 2010 in C.C. No. 1 of 2010 on the file of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for trial of Satyam Scam Cases, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal Revrsion Case.

¶23

Counsel forthe Petitioner: SRI CH. NARENOER REDDY, ADVOCATE, REP.,

¶24

SRI. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: K. MANI DEEPIKA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI MUTHYALA MURALIDHAR,

¶27

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

I I I i I

I i I i1

? : : ! i I t

THE HONOURABLE DR, JUSTICE D.NAGARJT'N CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.9O7 of 2O1O

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner - accused No.lO aggrieved by the order dated 23.O4.2O1O in Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2O1O in C.C.No.l of 2OlO on the liie of learned Additional Chief Metropolital Magistrate for trial of Satyam Scam Cases, Hyderabad.

¶35

The brief facts as can be seen from the record are that the respondent No. I - Enforcement Directorate has liled an application in Crt.M.p.No. 16 of 20 l0 in C.C.No.l of 2010 on the hle of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for trial of Satyam Scam Cases, Hyderabad with a prayer to permit the Enforcement Directorate to record the statements of Accused Nos.7 to tO in jail, who are in judicial custody. On hearing both sides, the trial Court has allowed the said application on 23.04.2010 permitting the respondent No. I _ Enforcement Directorate to record the statements of accused Nos.7 to 1O in t[e_presence of their counsel at the premises

¶36

¶37

of Central prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad from 26.04.2010 to 29.04 2010 from 10.30 am to 5.OO pM on every day. The Superintendent, Central prison, Chalchalguda, Hyderabad was a_lso directed to permit the Enforcement Directorate to record the statements of accused during the said period. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision case is filed by the revision petitioner, who is accused No. lO.

¶38

Sri Ch.Narender Reddy, learned counsel representing M/s'Gudapati Venkatesu,ara Rao, learned counsel on record for the revision petitioner - accused No. r0 has submitted that the matter has become infructuous and thereby requested this Court to close the matter.

¶39

Ms.K.Manideepika, Iearned counsel for the respondent No.1, who has filed countcr in this case is present.

¶40

Sri Muthyala Muralidhar, learned Additional public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 2 - State is present.

¶41

¶42

In view of the above submissions, the criminal revision

¶43

case is dismissed as infructuous.

¶44

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any,

¶45

shall stand closed.

¶46

B.SATYAVATHI //TRUE COPY// OEPU ffiGISTRAR \ sEcTloN oFFlcER .

¶47

To, 1. The Additional Chief^{Metropolitan Magistrate for Trial of SatyamScam Cases'} Hyderabad.

¶48

Two CCs to Public^{Prosecutor,High Courtfor the State of Telangana'at} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶49

One CC to SRl. VENKATESWARA^{RAOGUDAPATI,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶50

One CC to SRl. K MANI DEEPIKA,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

Two CD Copies

kam

i i ii I I I IIII T I I! I I \ I I i I 1I I ? : t tt i

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 510212023

ORDER

F. r.a:
<br>B 2 HIY zOR ,
1
!)F .
--.:-1-

¶60

CRLRC.No.907^{of 2010}

¶61

THE CRIMINAL^REVISIONCASE - H;rsMisaED^{AS lNFRucruous}

¶62

-L
'/
^ ^1)r, L )
1

¶63

V. Suryanarayana Prabhakar Gupta, Hyderbad. v. Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Suryanarayana Prabhakar Gupta, Hyderbad. v. Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, and Anr.

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

Pulluri Thanmai , Santhoshi Vs Pulluri Sudheer Kumar and 5 Others

Gundagoni Yellamma Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Smt. Rishi Kapoor, Secunderabad. Vs Amit Kapoor, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, and Anr.

Gundagoni Nagaraju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

R. Sandeep Reddy, Balanagar, R.R.Dist. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

B.Narasimha, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.