Criminal Appeal^{under Section37 4(2) ot Cr'P'C againstthe Judgmentdated} 24-01-2ollmadeinC.C.No.S65of2010thefileoftheCourtoftheJudiiial Magistrate^{of First Class, Suryapet'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

KodidelaVenkanna,s/o.Veeraiah,Age:39years'Occ:Casteprofession'Fl/o' Nomual Village^{of NakrekalMandal}

¶9

...Petitioner/APPellant

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of A.P-^{rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at} Hyderabad.

¶12

...RespondentJResPondent

¶13

Counsel for the^{Appellant:Mr. R. SRIDHAR}

¶14

Counsel for the^{Respondent: SRI KHAJAVIZARATHALI'} ASSISTANT^{PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶15

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶16

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶18

CRIMINAI APPE'AL No.194 OF 2011

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal Appeal is^{filed by the appellant/accused} aggrieved by the Judgment^{dated24.OL.2011 passed in} C.C.No.865 of 2O1O by the learned^{JudicialMagistrate of First} Class, Suryapet (for shot "trial^{CourtJconvictingthe} appellant/accused for the offences^{punishableunderSection 31 of} the Protection of Women from^{Domestic Violence Act,2OO5 and} sentencing him to suffer^rigorous imprisonment^{for a period of one} year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1O,OOO/- and in^{default of} payment of fine amount, the appellant/accused shall^{suffer simple} imprisonment for a period of one^month.

¶21

Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutoris} present. Today when the matter is taken up for^hearing, Mr. R. Sridhar, learned counsel^for the^{appellant submitsthat the} efforts made to contact the appellant/accused^{went in vain.}

¶22

While admitting the criminal appeal, this court^{uide interilrr-} order dated 25.O2.2011 in Criminal M.P.No.438 of^2011, suspended the operation of the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/appellant uide^judgment dated 24.pl.2011

¶23

¶24

¶25

in C.C.No.865 of 2011 passed by the trial Court and the appellant/accused was directed to be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like a sum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶26

Subsequently, as there was no representation for the appellant/accused on several occasions, this Court uide order dated 29.O1-2019 revoked the interim suspension of imprisonment granted against the appellant/ accused uide order dated 25.02.201 1 and directed the trial Court to issue nonbailable warrant (NBW) against the appellalt/accused ald take consequential measures against him

¶27

pursualt to the said order, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet has addressed a letter dated 02.04.2019 to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, stating that in obedience to the order dated 29.OI.2O19 passed by this court, the trial Court issued NBW against the appellant/accused and in pursuance of it the Station House Ofhcer, Suryapet (Rura1) Police Station has submitted a report dated 14.03.2019 stating that the accused in C.C.No.865 of 2O1O on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet, died one artd half year back and to that effect he has also liled the death certificate dated 22.02.201,9 of

¶28

¶29

¶30

the accused issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Nomula Village, Nakrekal Mandal, Suryapet District.

¶31

In view of the letter dated O2.O4.2Olg addressed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet to the Registrar (Judicial), this Criminal Appeal stands closed as abated.

¶32

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SdI.^{I. NAGALAKSH} R DEPUTY^REGIST ) I/TRUE^COPY/I SECTTON^OFFTCER

¶33

To, 1.^{The Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Suryapet'} 2. Two^{CCs to the} "b""^{;;";;tor'uigrr Court for the State of Tetangana at} HYderabad^(OUT) a. o"1""^{to Mr' R' SRIDHAR' AdvocatetoPucl} 4. Two^{CD CoPies} kam h.

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010312024

ORDER

CRLA.No.194 of 2011

rB.I
o R IHE SI4 15
7
((
I ,l
3 20f,Jurr,:,:
a.
,Jl, l ('
* o tl p 4 t-a u.f: n

¶39

THE GRIMINAL APPEAL IS CLOSED AS ABATED

¶40

(.4
co?
#r.,

Kodidela Venkanna, 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

Kodidela Venkanna, 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

K.Malla Reddy Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., H.C., Hyd. and Anr.

M.S.Malik and 3 Others Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Jangam Yellavva , Lachavva and 2 Others Vs the State of A.P.

P.Mahender Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Erukulla Uma Shankar, Warangal Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and Anr.

B.H.Kutumba Rao, R.R.Dt., Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., and Anr.