Accused's revision against an order condoning delay in filing revision was listed for dismissal due to counsel non-appearance. The underlying FIR case had ended in acquittal, conceded by the prosecution. The High Court dismissed the revision as infructuous and dismissed pending miscellaneous applications.
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.
[32ee ]
IN THE HIGH 'COURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, ..'-. _THE TWENTY SEVENTHDAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRIJUSTICE E'V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINALREVISION CASENO: 1440oF 2014
Criminal RevisionCasefiled underSe-ction.397and 401 of Cr'PC against the Judqmentoateo oo.o5-ior'i "'lo"l" c'r'-rtlp x"'1997 of 2013 in crl'MP No.31 15 0f2013 tn crim-e'"r{o.r'id-otioiz on the file of the court of the iiltijdJritr'" i"iii"n.Judse at Nampallv'Hvderabad
Between:
R/o H.No14-3-132/1(Old A.Davanand,S/o.A'sattaiah' Occ:Business' ra:ii*Cij-' sr,iwada,Goshamal,Hyderabad
...Petitioner/RespondenUAccused
AND
...Respondents
l.A. NO:2oF 2014CRLRCMP.NO:2348 oF 2014
PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated inthe affidavitfir"i'in'J,]ppoJof tne'p"titiin,the High Court.may.be oleasedto grant stay of ati t'ir'"i[i"t""dings in Criminal Revision Petition No' .126 of 2014 on the file .j'in" 'Hl"t.polit-an sessions Judge at Nampally, H-Vi.trO"Jpending disposal of the mian CrI RC'
Counselfor the Petitioner: Sri NarasimhaRao Gudiseva
Counselfor the RespondentNo'1 : Sri Mahesh Raie
Counselfor the RespondentNo'2 : SriE Ganesh' Assistant Public Prosecutor
The Courtmadethe following: ORDER
I )
1 I
'tFtrE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE E.V.VENIJGCTPAL
C:IlIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1zt40 0F 2014
ORDER:
This :r'iroinal revision case is filed by the petitic,ner/accused under Sectic,r'rs 397 and 401 of Cr.p.C., aggrieved by the order dated O6.Otl.1t()14 in CrI.Mp No.1997 of 2O13 in Crl Mp No.3115 of 2013 in (lrime No. 14g of 2Ol2 passed by the Iearned Metropolir,a-r lj:ssions Judge, Hyderabad wherern an.l rvhere under the 1rr:Lvr:r of the petitioner/accused to condonc t tre delay of 193 dz,.v,; :rr preferring criminal revision pcti:ron ag.,rnst the order in ()rl.lv[t) No.3115 of 2O13 in Crime No. i48 o] 20 l2 of pS ShahinayzLtlrll.,r rLg, pending on the file of thc I:arred XVI Additional (rf,:r f Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad u,as allowed on conditiorr ot' payment of Rs. 1,OOO/_ to the MI-SA. Flv,jerabad on or beforr: 1i\ O3.2O24.
Page 2 of2
{ I
of 2Ol2 ofPS Shahinayathgungit is revealedthat the said case ended inacquittal.The leamed assistant publicprosecutorhas also concededto the same' In that view of the matter' the causein continuation ofthe present criminal revision case doesnot survive. Havingregard to the submission of learned assistant public prosecutorand taking into record the copy of FIR status' referred supra,this Court is inclined to dismiss the present criminalrevisioncaseas infructuous'
SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
I
To,
ADK/gh
I il
HIGH COUR-r
DATED:27n1\ZOZS
ORDER
CRLRC.N 0.1440 of 2014
oR 1 tl5 .j I, ', :\ ,
7 c.f <br>r:l'll
?:, 2 6 rul ffi.:,
,:- ,,,
r, ,.. L .1',
DISMISSING T'HE CRLRC AS INFRUCTUOUS
6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision survives where the underlying case ended in acquittal.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
A. Davanand
M. Renuka
The State of Telangana
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
