Partly allowed

Manula Brahma Naidu, v. the Stateof as.P., Rep. by Its P.P.

Telangana HC13 Aug 2024CRLRC/2059/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under CrPC Sections 397 and 401, the High Court set aside imprisonment for exceeding the period already served due to the petitioner's age and long bail custody, while leaving the fine unaffected and cancelling bond.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment set off to period already undergone; bail bonds cancelled; fine remains unaltered.

Manula Brahma Naidu, Vs the Stateof as.P., Rep… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NorE : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 10.11.2010 in Crt.R.C.tvt.p.No. 3022 of 2010 in Crt.R.C No. 2059 of 2O1O

¶3

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶8

CRIMINAL REVI sto N CASE NO: 2059 OF 2010

¶9

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sectionr3gT & 4O.l of Cr.p.C., against the Judgment dated 04.10.2010 passed in crl.A.No. 13 of 2010 on the file of th6 court of the V Additional sessions Judge_at Mahabubnagar preferred against the Judgment dated 22.12.2009 passed in C.C.No. 398 of 2006 on the fite of the Court ;f the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Manula Brahma Naidu, S/o. Sanjanna, Age: 49 years, Occ: Driver of the lorry No. Ap-21AlV-1859, Rfo. Kiolakuntta Of Kuinoot District.

¶12

...Petitioner/Accused

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶15

... Responde nUCom pla ina nt

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G. Rajeshwar Rao

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2O59 OF 2O1O

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 4O 1 of ttre Code of Criminal procedure, l9Z3 (for short'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused No.l to set aside the judgment dated 04.10.1010 passed by the learned V Addl. Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar in Crl.A.No.13 of 2010, confirming the sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy in C.C.No.398 of 2006 dated 22.t2.2OO9.

¶22

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶23

The revision petitioner was driving lorry which was involved in the accident resulting in death of one person and injuries to two others. The accident happened when the revision petitioner dashed the lorry against the Tata sumo. On collision with the lorry,, the Tata Sumo stopped. Another bus coming from back of the Tata Sumo also dashed against the Tata Sumo. The driver of the bus was arrayed as accused No.2. The trial Court found that

¶24

the driver of the bus was not responsible and accordingly acquitted him.

¶25

Having gone through the record, PWs 1 to 3 eye witnesses spoke about the rash and negligent act of the lorry driver. There are no grounds to interfere with the Iindings of the Court below regarding the involvement of the revision petitioner.

¶26

However, it is admitted that the petitioner is now aged around 66 years and there are no other criminal cases of similar kind. Further, the revision petitioner was in jail from 04.10.2010 to 02.71.2010.

¶27

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and keeping in view that the petitioner is suffering from old aged ailments, the sentence of imprisonment is set of to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine shall remain unaltered. Bail bonds furnished by him shall stand cancelled.

¶28

Accordingly, the Criminal Reuision Case is partly allowed.

¶29

--7

¶30

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any,^shall

¶31

stand closed.

¶32

Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY//

¶33

SE TION OFFICER

¶34

To, 1 . The V Additional^{Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar'.(with records)} 2. The Judicial^{Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy' (with recoros)} 5. fn" Sup.tintendent,^{District Jail, Mahabubnagar District'} ; i;;^-ctJ to the^{pubiic prosecutor, High court for the stateof Telanganaat} Hvderabad^(OUT) s. oiri-C-C to^{Sri G.'RajeshwarRao, AdvocateIOPUCI} 6. Two CD CoPies N ' ib/sh"-- Yl,-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310812024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.2059 ot 2010

¶41

rf
1 ll t ) T t
(
o 2l ,i[:i ?[?i :;l
<br>.:/
i
OF.s:lr

¶42

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLRC

¶43

qcd?ea
&r^,

Manula Brahma Naidu, v. the Stateof as.P., Rep. by Its P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manula Brahma Naidu, v. the Stateof as.P., Rep. by Its P.P.

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

Mohd. Abdullah Munawar, Vs M/s. Sri Balaji Agencies

Smt. M. Chandrakala, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

P. Jaya Prakash, Hyderabad. Vs the State of a.P., through P.P., Hyderabad.

Mr. Sushil Mehta, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Narayana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gajjala Konda Reddy and Another Vs Mrs. Ravi Sarojini and Another