Smt. C. Pavani

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS

JUDGE AT MAHABUBABAD

Wednesday, the 30th day of March, 2022.

Present: SMT. C. PAVANI, IV Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Warangal. FAC VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 10 OF 2022

in Crl.MP. No.153/2022 in Crime No.05/2022

of PS, Kuravi.

Between:

The State of Telangana, through Circle Inspector of Police, PS., Mahabubabad Rural

..... Revision petitioner/Complainant.

and

Bhukya Hachya, S/o. Panthulya Aged: 63 Years, Caste:Lambada, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Somla Thanda, H/o. Kuravi of Mahabubabad District.

...Respondent/Accused.

This petition is coming on 28.03.2022 before me for fnal hearing in the presence of the learned

Additional Public Prosecutorfor the Revision

Petitioner/Complainant; and having stood over for consideration, this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: ORDER:

This revision petition is fled under Section 397

CrPC challenging the order passed by the learned 2 Crl.R.P. 24 of 2022

dt. 16.12.2022.

AdditionalJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass,

Mahabubabad in CrL.MP. No.153/2022 Dt: 11.02.2022 in

Cr.No. 05/2022 of PS., Kuravi.

2. As per the contents of the grounds of the revision it is the case of the prosecution that the respondent/accused was produced before the learned I

AdditionalJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass,

Mahabubabad seeking remand to judicial custody in

Cr.No. 05/2022 of PS., Kuravi on the allegation that the respondent/accused committed murder of his daughter- in-law Rajitha on 05.01.2022. On 07.01.2022 police fled the requisition vide CrL.MP. No. 07/2022 before the learned Magistrate seeking grant of police custody of one day of the respondent/accused for further investigation. The learned Magistrate through the order

dated 18.01.2022 in Crl.MP. No. 07/2022 granted police

custody of the accused for one day. When the concerned police went to the Sub Jail along with the order issued by the learned Magistrate, the

Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Mahabubabad issued the 3 Crl.R.P. 24 of 2022

dt. 16.12.2022.

letter stating that the accused was tested Covid

Positive on 17.01.2022 and that he was in isolation. The same was informed to the I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad. After the

isolation period of the accused was completed the police fled another requisition before the learned

Magistrate vide Crl.MP. No. 153/2022 seeking police

custody of the accused and the learned Magistrate vide his order Dt: 11.02.2022 dismissed the said petition on the ground that after the expiry of frst 15 days of remand of the accused, police custody cannot be granted under Section 167 CrPC. It is contended that the police custody of the accused is required for the recovery of the blood stained clothes of the accused, which were kept in his house and for further investigation of the case. It is further contended that though the requisition seeking police custody was fled on 07.01.2022, the order was passed by the learned

Magistrate on 18.01.2022 which resulted in abnormal

delay and the mandatory period of 14 days elapsed. As such, the prosecution prayed to set aside the order 4 Crl.R.P. 24 of 2022

dt. 16.12.2022.

passed in Crl.MP. No. 153/2022 and prayed to grant police custody of the accused.

3. Notice was served to the accused in person, but none appeared for the accused.

4.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

5. Now the point for determination is:

"Whether the revision petitioner has made out any grounds to interfere into the correctness or illegality or fndings of the

order as provided under Section 397 CrPC?"

6. POINT:

The contention of the revision petitioner is that the police custody of the accused is required for the seizure of the incriminating material, which is in the exclusive possession of the accused and for further investigation of the case. It is contended that due to the abnormal delay caused in disposal of Crl.MP. No.

07/2022 and as the accused was tested Covid Positive, though the police custody was granted for one day, 5 Crl.R.P. 24 of 2022

dt. 16.12.2022.

police could not take him into custody as he was in isolation.

7. Perusal of the record shows that the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate on 07.01.2022 at 07:00 PM. The requisition seeking police custody was fled before the Magistrate on 07.01.2022 and the same was put up before the learned Magistrate on 10.01.2022. It is pertinent to mention here that 08.01.2022 was a Second Saturday and 09.01.2022 was a Sunday. Thereafter, notice was ordered to the accused and the accused was represented by a Legal

Aid counsel and the petition was posted for hearing on 12.01.2022 and later to 17.01.2022 after the public holidays and Crl.MP. No. 07/2022 was allowed on 18.01.2022 granting police custody for one day.

8.Further, as per the letter Dt: 19.01.2022 issued by the Superintendent, Sub Jail, Mahabubahad the accused was tested Covid Positive on 17.01.2022 and was in isolation. The police again fled a requisition before the learned Magistrate vide Crl.MP. No. 153/2022 on 6 Crl.R.P. 24 of 2022

dt. 16.12.2022.

08.02.2022 which was dismissed on 11.02.2022. As the accused was remanded on 07.01.2022 by the date of fling Crl.MP. No. 153/2022 the accused was in judicial custody for about a month. As per Section 167 CrPC police custody cannot be granted beyond the period of remand for the frst 15 days.

9. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI, Special Investigation Cell v. Anupam J

Kulkarni reported in (1992) 3 SCC 141 and by the

Hon'ble High Court in the case ofThe Public

Prosecutor APHC v. J.C. Narayana Reddy reported in 1996 CrILJ 462(AP) "Remand of accused to police custody after the expiry of frst 15 days cannot be permitted and the Magistrate can give custody only within the initial period of 15 days". Though the learned

Public Prosecutor contended that the police custody of the accused is very essential to complete the investigation of the case and to recover the blood stained clothes of the accused, which he hid in his house and only due to the inordinate delay in disposal of the police custody petition and due to the isolation 7 Crl.R.P. 24 of 2022

dt. 16.12.2022.

of the accused due to Covid infection, the police custody of the accused could not be obtained, on the said grounds police custody of the accused cannot be granted beyond the initial period of 15 days. In view of the above discussion, there is no illegality or infrmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate which is under challenge and as such the same is not liable to be set aside. Hence, the point is held against the prosecution.

10.In the result, the revision petition is dismissed, confrming the order passed by the learned I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad in

Crl.MP. No. 153/2022 Dt: 11.02.2022.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of

March, 2022).

FAC VI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

MAHABUBABAD.

Copy to

The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, AT MAHABUBABAD

Presided Over by MOHD. ABDUL RAFI

MVOP No. 1046/2016

Petitioners:

1.Vennam Susheela, Age: 50 Years,

2.Vennem Pulla Reddy, Age: 35 Years,

3.Vennam Malla Reddy, Age: 32 Years,

4.Vennam Narsi Reddy, Age: 26 Years, All are residents of Nellikuduru Village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

VERSUS Respondents:

1.Legala Ramesh, Age: 28 Years, R/o. Ravirala Village, Nellikuduru Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

2.Oriental Insurance Ltd., Warangal.

ORDER

Date : 04-03-2022

In the result, the petition is allowed with proportionate costs, awarding a compensation of Rs.4,79,800/- with future interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the payment or realization, recoverable by the petitioners from the respondent No.1 to 4 jointly and severally. The respondent no.3 and 4 shall pay and recover the compensation amount from the respondent no.2. (i) The respondents shall bear their own costs. The time for deposit of the amount is 30 days. (ii) The petitioners are directed to deposit the deficit Court fee within one month from this date and on such deposit the office is directed to prepare the decree for Rs.4,79,800/-. If the petitioners fail to deposit the deficit Court fee the office is directed to prepare the decree for Rs.4,23,000/- on deposit of Court fees for the same. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount into the Court within thirty days from the date of depositing of deficit Court fee. (iii) Out of the amount awarded the petitioner No.1 is apportioned an amount of Rs.3,29,800/- and the petitioner No.2 to 4 are apportioned an amount of Rs.50,000/- each. The petitioners are permitted to withdraw the entire amount of apportioned to them on deposit. (iv) Advocate fees is fixed as Rs.5,000/-.

(MOHD. ABDUL RAFI)

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubabad.

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, AT MAHABUBABAD

Presided Over by MOHD. ABDUL RAFI

OP No. 55/2021

Petitioner:

Banoth @ Boda Aruna, Age: 29 Years, R/o Dornakal, Mahabubabad.

VERSUS Respondent:

Banoth Madhukar, Age: 32 Years, R/o. H.No.1-7-1781/1/11, Bheeshma Nagar, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda.

ORDER

Date : 11-04-2022

Order pronounced vide separate typed one In the result, the petition is allowed by granting divorce to the petitioners by dissolving their marriage, dt 23.07.2018. The Parties shall bear their own costs.

(MOHD. ABDUL RAFI)

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubabad.

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, AT MAHABUBABAD

Presided Over by MOHD. ABDUL RAFI

OP No. 53/2021

Petitioner:

Boyala Vinod Kumar, Age: 32 Years, R/o. H.No 13-65-9/1, Tadepally, Vijayawada.

VERSUS Respondent:

Bouyyala @ Pokala Rajini Misra, R/o. H.No 2-3-141, Dornakal.

ORDER

Date : 21-03-2022

Orders pronounced vide separate typed one. In the result, this petition is allowed by granting divorce to the petitioners by dissolving their marriage

dated:23.6.2014. The parties shall bear their own costs.

(MOHD. ABDUL RAFI)

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubabad.

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ,

MAHABUBABAD

Present:- P. Vasanth

Principal District and Sessions

Judge , Mahabubabad

OS/28/2017

Between:-

Ridhima Estates Private Ltd. Address: 1-4-200/161-c, Eshwaripuri Colony, kapra, Ranga Reddy … Plaintiff/Petitioner

AND 1:Vedantham Vijay Kumar Address: 5-1-54/1, Kaviraja Nagar, Khammam 2:Md. Najeer, Age: 53 … Defendant/Respondent

ORDER

Date: 01-04-2022:

Plaintiff called absent. No. rep., In spite of granting sufficient time and the conditional order plaintiff failed to adduce evidence. Hence the suit is dismissed for default with costs

Principal District and Sessions Judge ,

Mahabubabad