Remanded

Pampari. Uday Kiran v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Dec 2024CRLRC/1215/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the single-judge High Court held that the petitioner bypassed required objections at the appellate stage by approaching the High Court directly. The court remanded the matter to the appellate court, directing the petitioner to comply with objections within four weeks before the appeal is reconsidered.

What did the court decide?

Remanded the criminal revision case to the appellate court with a direction to the petitioner to comply with objections raised in the Criminal Appeal within four weeks before the appeal is reconsidere

Pampari. Uday Kiran Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO : 1215 0F 2024

¶7

criminal Revision case filed under section 43g & 442 of BNSS against the Docket order dated 19-08-2024 made in s.R. No. 6zs of 2024 on the file of the court of the Principal District and sessions court Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

ignlprri^{Uday.Kiran,S/o,} !a!e-P^{yeilaiah, Aged about} 21^years, Occ. Student, Rl/o. H.No. 7-83/1, S.p Nagar, Neai S5i Baba femptei-lr4atkaigrn, Hyderabad

¶10

...Petitioner / Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the public prosecutor, High Court of

¶13

I elangana, Hyderabad

¶14

..,Respondent

¶15

IANO:3OF2 024

¶16

Petition under section 438 & 442 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to set aside the Docket order Dt. 19.08.2024 in S.R.No.62s 12024 on the file of the court of the Principal District and Session's court Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent

¶19

Sri S Viplav Simha Reddy

¶20

Sri E Ganesh

¶21

Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶22

The Court made the following Order :

¶23

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL} CRIMINAL RE\rISION^{CASE NO.L2L5 0F 2024}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The present^{Criminal Revision Case is Iiled by the} petitioner seeking^{toset-asidethe docket order dated} 1g.O8.2O24 in^{S.R.No.625 of 2024, on the file of the learned} Principal District^{and Sessions Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri} District at Kushaiguda^{(for short, the appellate Court)'}

¶26

Heard learned counsel^{for the petitioner/accusedand} the learned Assistant^{Pubtic Prosecutor appearing on behalf} of respondent-State.^{Perused the record'}

¶27

Learned counsel^{for ttre petitionercontended that the} iearned Principal^{Junior CivilJudge-cum-Metropolitan} Magistrate, Medchal^{MalkaigiriDistrict atKushaiguda} (for short, the trial Court),^{without passing a detailed order'} vide docket order dated^{31.07.2023 in C'C'No'2013 of 2022} convicted the accused for^{the oflences punishable under} Sections 3g2, 75,380^{and 457 of IPC and sentenced him to} undergo simple imprisonment^{for a periodof three years and} directed to pay a fine of^{Rs. 1OO/-. He further contended that}

¶28

¶29

D]',V,l Crl.R.C.No.12 I 5 of 2021

¶30

the petitioner could not file the detailed^{judgmentbefore the} appellate Court for the reason that the trial^{Court has not} passed a separate detailed Judgment. He further^contended that the appellate Court^{mechanicallyreturned the petitionon} 1g.O8.2O24, which is contrary to law, irregular^{and against} probabilities of the case. Hence, prayed to allow the Rerrision.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned Assistant^Public Prosecutor opposing the same submits that the^objections raised in the Criminal Appeal a-re not complied^{with by the} petitioner, hence, appellate Court returned the sarne and interference of this Court is unwarranted and^seeksto dismiss the Revision.

¶32

Having regard to the rival contentions and the^material on record, this Court is of the considered^{view that insteadof} complying the objections raised in the^S.R.No.625 of^2024, the revision petitioner approached this^{Court directly. In} these circumstances, this matter is remanded^{back to the} appellate Court with a direction to the^{revision petitioner to} comply with the objections raised within a^{period of four} weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this^{order and}

¶33

¶34

EryJ Crl.R.C.No. I 21 5 of 2024

¶35

upon such compliance by the revision petitioner, the learned appellate Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders as early as possible strictly in accordance with law.

¶36

With the above said observation, this Criminal Revision

¶37

Case is disposed of.

¶38

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶39

closed.

¶40

Sd/. B. CHANDRA^PRAKASH ASSTSTANT^REGISTRAR

/ffRUE COPY//

!'1

SECTION OFFICER

To,

l.ThePrincipalDistrictandSessionsCourtJudge,MedchalMalkajgiriDistrictat Kushaiguda

¶46

Two^{CCs to the PublicProsecutor, High Courtfor the State of Telangana'} Hyderabad [OUTI

¶47

One^{CC to Sri S Viplav Simha Reddy, Advocate IOPUC]}

¶48

Two CD^CoPies

t*,

q d

HIGH COURT

DATED:0 411212024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1215 of 2024

¶55

r€
1i{e srA
(
()'
g [Et 2[24 c
,<
t
t
OE S PrrT C

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC

¶57

? @'
,r1
utr

Pampari. Uday Kiran v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pampari. Uday Kiran 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ulvakani Mahesh, Adilabad Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

G.Sandhya Rani , M.Sandhya Rani Vs the State of Ap., and 3 Others

Parpalli Mallaiah @ Mallesh, Vs Sri. Nvk Srinivas

Manjunath Vs S. Anusha @ Lahari

V. Satyanarayana Goud Vs P.v.Ravi Shekar Reddy

Bodasu Satyanarayana Vs the State of A.P. and Another