Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the^judgment dated 16.10.2014ⁱⁿ Crl.M.P.No. 488 of 2014 in Spl. S.C. No. 39 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Juvenile Justice Board cum Judicial First Class Magistrate. Mahaboobnagar.

¶10

Between:

¶11

MR.Goulla Venkatesh, S/o. Goula Anjaneyulu. Aged 27^years, R/ o. Saddalonipally Village, Maldakal, Mahabubnagar, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶12

...Petitioner

¶13

AND

¶14

The State Of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor. High Court at Hyderabad. through the Station House Officer. Maldalak Police Station HOuse, Maldakal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶15

. Respo ndenUCo m pla inant

¶16

Mr. Kolla Radhakrishna, S/o. Mr. Kolla Ramanna, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Saddalonipally Village Maldakal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶17

...RespondenUAccused

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. B Shashidhar

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri E. Ganesh Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : Sri K Venkatesh Gupta

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

I l

¶23

THE HOI{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISI ON CASE No.1899 OF 2016

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Revision Case is frled assailing the order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board-cumJudicial First Class ![agistrate, Mahaboobnagar vide its docket order dated l6.LO.2Ol4 in Cr1.M.p.No.448 of 2014 in Spl.S.C.No.39 of 2OL4 wherein the date of birth ol the petitioner r,vas shown as 08.07. 1996, so as on the date of alleged offence, the petitioner was a juvenile, the learned trial Court recording no objection of both sides, transmitted the case to the Juvenile Court under Section 34 of POCSO Act,2Ol2 r/w Section 7 ofJuvenile Justice Act, 200O.

¶26

2- Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that as against the orders passed by the learned trial Court. the father of the victim frled this Criminal Revision Case and would submit that the aadhaar card and electoral card demonstrates that the date of birth of respondent/accused is i8.03.1990 and the school records demonstratc' the date of birth as 27.08.1994. In either case

¶27

the petitioner is not a juvenile. But, only based upon the proceedings of RDO, the trial Court erroneously passed the impugned docket order. Hence, seeks to set aside the impugned docket order.

¶28

t earned counsel for the unolllcial respondent would submit that at the instance of the revision petitioner, this matter is pending for 1O long years. The subject matter has been transmitted to the learned Juvenile Court under Section 34 of POCSO Act, 2Ol2 r/w Section 7 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. Hence, the interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶29

Taking the same stand learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the subject marter is pending for long time and hence the interference of this Court is not warranted and seeks to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case.

¶30

Having heard both sides, this Court is of the opinion that the subject matter of this case is pending for 10 -vears and due to stay granted, the matter is not preceded further. However, keeping in view of rival contentions, the

¶31

i I I i I

¶32

subject matter has to be adjudicated by the learned trial Court by verifying the material papers before it, pertaining to the age of the accused/petitioner and to take appropriate decision by giving an opportunity to the petitioner herein.

¶33

Consequently, this Criminal Revision Case is remanded back to the Court below. The Learned trial Court is directeci to conduct and conclude the proceedings on the aspect of rlate of birth of the accused and take appropriate decision accordingly as expeditiously as possible, preferably u,ithin a period of three (3) months from the date of this order.

¶34

With the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶35

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shatl stand

¶36

closed.

¶37

Sd/. T. KRISHNA^KUMAR DEPUfi REGISTRAR ,/'

//TRUE COPY//

t TION OFFICER

To,

The Juvenile^{Justice Board cum Judicial First class Magistrate,} Mahahoohr agar.^{(Withrecords, if any)}

¶42

2 The First Additional^{District Sessions Judge at Mahaboobnagar'}

¶43

The Station^{House Officer, MaldakalPolice Station,Mahabubnagar} District.

¶44

Two CCS to Public^{Prosecutor,High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶45

¶46

6 7^{q[:"i3,':".:i,.'"T?*:,ffffi 1ii,,,""r"?1,3",.,} D Ltg h @ I \

( (

I I

I I I I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 5/1 0/20: 14

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1899 of 2016

¶56

I S I €
t
.) 2 2 FIB 2025 o
<br>t
DFs PA:rc

¶57

CrI.R.C. IS DISPOSED OF

¶58

r$o r{
>

Mr.Goulla Venkatesh v. the State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Mr.Goulla Venkatesh v. the State of Telangana 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

V Narayana Reddy (Died) Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Sadiq Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Peddadoddi Shankar Vs The State of Telangana

M.Naresh Kumar Vs The State of A.P.

Thakur Rajender Singh, Nizamabad Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd

B.Shiva Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.