The High Court dismissed the criminal revision case because it was erroneously numbered by the registry without a pending application for condonation of delay. The court noted no ill-intention on the part of the scrutiny officer but refused to entertain the revision on procedural grounds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32es I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY. THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 995 OF 2024
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 407 of CrPC against the Judgment dated 14-07-2022 made in Crl.Appeal No. 1081 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, preferred against thejudgment dated 23-11-2018 made in CC.No. 41 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Xl Special Magistrate, at Hasthinapuram.
Between:
V. Venkatesham, S/o Balaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.3-1 1-273, Shivashanker Colony, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District,
...PETITIONERYACCUSED
AND
... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Sec{ion 397 (1) CrPCpraying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe petition, theHigh Courtmay be pleased to suspend the operation of theproceedings pursuant to Judgment dated 14107t2022 passed in Crl. AppealNo,1081 of 201S on the file of thelll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Ranga Reddy Districtat L.B. Nagar,and
to release thepetitioner on bail pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Petitio n.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 711 days in filing the revision petition.
lA NO: 3 OF 2024
Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 800 days in filing the revision petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rapolu Bhaskar
Gounsel for the Respondent No.'l: Public Prosecutor
The Court made the following: ORDER
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.995 of 2 024
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging thejudgment dated 23. 11.2018 passed in C.C.No.41 of 2Ol7 on the file of the learned XI Special Magistrate, L. B. Nagar at Hastinapuram, R.R.District which is confirmed by the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar vide Judgment dated t4.O2.2022 in Crl.A.No. 1O8 I of 2018.
As sequcl to it, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand rlismissed.
sd/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//
{; N OFFICER
To,
VH,/PR
l<t'
HIGH COURT DATED: 2411012024
ORDER
CRLRC.No.99S ot 2024
1l-iE Sla
( ,e.
t,
o :l
?-
21tEB ZUs
I t j)L)
I
..): t)t]. I C,
DISMISSING THE Crt.R.C
q coP(4
Ft,*
1 issue framed by the court
Can a Criminal Revision Case be numbered and entertained in the absence of a pending delay condonation petition?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
V. Venkatesham
State of Telangana
M. Krishna Reddy
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
