Sri G.Shyam Prasad

CA.101/2012 1

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: HYDERABAD

Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2013

Present: Sri.G.Shyam Prasad, M.A.B.Com,B.L., Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 101 of 2012

From what court this appeal is Sri S.V.V.Natha Reddy, preferred:XVII.Addl. CMM, Hyderabad

Case Number in that court C.C.No.143/2008

Criminal Appeal Number C.A.No.101/2012

Name and description of the K.Shiva Kumar, S/o.K.Ramulu, aged appellants26 years, occ; Lorry driver, R/o.H.No.7-54,Kothakota Mahboobnagar.

Name and description of the The State of AP Respondentthrough SHO, Musheerabad Police Station, Hyderabad.

The law and sentence under which The appellant is found guilty the appellant was convicted before the For the offence punishable lower courtunder section 304-A IPC and he is convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo SI for three months.

Whether confirmed, modified or In the result, the appeal is reversed and if modified, the dismissed. The Judgment dt:19-1- modification2012 in C.C.No.143/2008 passed by the XVII Addl.Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad is confirmed.

DATE ON WHICH

Presentation of Appeal 7-2-2012 Filing of Appeal 7-2-2012 Notice issued to appellant to appear 7-2-2012 First appearance of Appellant 28-2-2012 Hearing of Appeal 23-9-2013 Judgment in the Appeal 30-9-2013

CA.101/2012 2

This Criminal Appeal is coming on for hearing before me, upon perusing the grounds of appeal, and lower court record, and upon considering the arguments of Sri.H.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate

for the Appellant and Sri.V.Bala Buchaiah, Public Prosecutor for

State/Respondent, this court has made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This criminal appeal is arising out of the judgment

dated:19-1-2012 in C.C.No.143/2008 passed by the XVII Addl.Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20-4- 2003, the defacto complainant M.Satyanarayana with his wife

Smt.Jessy Margaret(deceased) and their son Ravi Teja went to their relatives house at Fish Market on their Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing

No.AP 9-R-6984 and at about 10 AM, they left their relatives house and proceeding towards Ramnagar on the scooter being driven by the defacto complainant with his wife and son as pillion riders. While defacto complainant was going towards Ramagar and crossed the post office the accused had driven the Ashok Leyland mini lorry in the same direction and hit the scooter of the defacto complainant from backside. The defacto complainant and his son who was pillion rider fell down towards right side while the wife of the defacto complainant fell down towards left side of the road, and the crime lorry after dashing the scooter ran over the wife of the defacto complainant and her head was broken,. The defacto complainant, his son and his wife received bleeding injuries and his wife succumbed to head injury.

Therefore the accused has committed offence punishable under section 304-A IPC.

3.The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under section 337 and 304-A IPC against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him and the accused was examined under section 251 CrPC and that he denied the offence alleged against him and claimed to be tried.

4.During trial before the trial court, the prosecution has

CA.101/2012 3 examined P.Ws 1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8.

5.After closing the evidence of prosecution side, the accused was examined under section 313 CrPC, by putting incriminating evidence appearing against him for which he denied the said evidence as false. But got marked Ex.D1.

6.On hearing the arguments of both sides, and on consideration of the evidence the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence u/s.304-A IPC, and acquitted the accused for the offence u/s 337 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further period of SI for three months.

7.Being aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal has been preferred on following grounds that the prosecution failed to prove the rash or negligent act of the accused in this case, therefore accused is not liable for conviction for the offence u/s.304 -A IPC.

8.The points for consideration in this appeal are:

"1. Whether the prosecution has proved the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused?

2.Whether the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle?

3.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC?

9.POINT No.1:-

Prosecution has examined eight witnesses in this case and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.8 and Ex.D1 before the trial court.

M.Satyanarayana is the defacto complainant, eye witness who received injuries in the said accident. Ex.P1 is his injury certificate.

Ex.P.2 is the Injury certificate of Master N.Ravi Teja. PW.1 to PW.3 are the independent eye witnesses to the accident. PW.4 is the CMO,

Gandhi Hospital who treated the complainant and his son and issued

Ex.P.1 and Ex.p.2. PW.5 is the motor vehicle Inspector who inspected

CA.101/2012 4 the crime vehicle and opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects and he issued Ex.P.3-MVI Report. PW.6 is the

Professor of Forensic medicine, Gandhi Hospital, who received Ex.P.4- requisition from SI of police, and conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.5-PME Report. PW.7 is the sub

Inspector of Police, PS.Musheerabad who investigated the matter and filed charge sheet in this case. PW.8 is the Sub Inspector of Police,

PS.Musheerabad, who received Ex.P.6-complaint, registered the case and issued Ex.P.7-FIR and investigated the matter. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D1 contradiction in the 161 Cr.P.C statement of the PW.1 is marked.

10.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that witnesses have stated that vehicle was driven at high speed and the said high speed cannot be considered that accused had driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. In this regard, the counsel for the appellant cited decisions reported in

1) 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 256 (AP.) in case of

K.Nageswara Rao Vs. State of AP wherein their lordships held that :

“Penal code 1860 – Section 304-A – Rash and negligent driving – Proof of - prosecution must prove that accused was driver of lorry at time of accident and that he drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner – Merely because accused was driver of lorry, it cannot be presumed that he drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner – Statement of accused made before police officer is not substantive piece of evidence to rely upon – Prosecution must prove rash and negligence independently – Conviction merely on basis of statement before police officer unsustainable and liable to be set aside”.

2)2007 CRL.L.J.1089 in case of Abdul Subhan Vs.

State wherein their lordships held that :

“Penal Code (45 of 1860) Ss.279, 304 – Causing death by negligence – Proof – Accused allegedly driving tempo-truck at high speed hit motorcyclist – path of movement of vehicles must be sought to be established in course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt

CA.101/2012 5 – questions whether motor cyclist was taking turn on a green light or a red light and so too whether petitioner was driving tempo truck crossing green light or a red light remained unanswered as site plan had not been exhibited – Non-examination of investigating officer resulted in prejudice being caused t accused – Testimony of head constable that accused was driving vehicle at “high speed” - Expression “ high speed” is an unclear expression – No evidence to conclusively indicate that accused was driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner – Accused is entitled to be acquitted”

3)2010(2) ALD (Crl.) 376 (AP) in case of K.Rajaiah Vs.

State of AP, their lordships held that :

“Penal Code 1860 – Section 304-A – Acquittal – Rash and negligent driving – Mere driving of a vehicle at a high speed not sufficient – In absence of any speed-breaker and signboard near location of a school, if driver drives a bus at a high speed, it cannot be treated as rash and negligent driving – Nothing can be inferred without any legal evidence – No conviction can be based on assumptions and presumptions nor any inference can be drawn not basing on legal evidence- Merely because a ghastly accident has occurred resulting in death of some persons, accused cannot be convicted – impugned judgment of court below set aside – criminal revision case allowed and accused acquitted”

11.Learned public prosecutor submitted that the rash and negligent act of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The manner in which the accident occurred reveal that the accused had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The doctrine of “ res ipsa locutor” is applicable to the facts of this case, as the manner in which the accident occurred clearly reveals that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.

12.Learned Public prosecutor further submits that crime vehicle has dashed the scooter from the rear side, and the scooter was dragged to some distance and this itself reveals that the crime vehicle was driven in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and even after hitting the scooter, he did not even stop the vehicle as he

CA.101/2012 6 was going at a high speed. And therefore the negligent act on the part of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court has properly appreciated the evidence and convicted the accused and the judgment of the trial court does not require any interference in this appeal and there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial court and therefore sought for dismissal of the appeal.

13.The rash and negligent act on the part of the accused is proved by the cogent and consistent evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. They have clearly spoken about the accident. This is a case of accident in which a lorry dashed the scooter, from its rear side of the scooter which is going in front of it. There is also evidence on record to show that the scooter was dragged to some extent after the lorry dashed the scooter. The manner in which accident occurred clearly reveals rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle.

This point is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:

Learned counsel for appellant contended that the identity of the accused is not established by any evidence, and therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal Learned counsel for appellant contended that though PW.1 stated that the accused was apprehended immediately after the accident at 10-00 AM but the arrest card shows the time as 1-00 PM and there is ambiguity that accused was arrested immediately after the accident is not proved by the prosecution, therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal, and cited a decision reported in 2009(1) ALD (Crl) 971 AP in case of Piginaraji Ranga

Rao Vs. State of AP.

“Criminal law – Test Identification Parade – Failure to hold, effect of ,when witnesses had no opportunity to have good look at accused and there was no prior acquaintance between witnesses and accused – Penal code 1860, section 304- A – Acquittal”

CA.101/2012 7

15. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the investigating agency has not investigated the matter properly by establishing the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused and also that accused was the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of the accident. Investigating agency has not examined any independent witness in this case and there is shifting of scene of offence in this case and the rough sketch of the scene of offence has not been prepared, and in view of the discrepancy and inconsistency in the evidence of the witnesses and in view of the foregoing contentions, accused is entitled for acquittal.

16.Learned Public prosecutor submitted that evidence of PW .

1 and 2 clearly indicate that the accused was caught red handed immediately after the accident and he was handed over to the police and therefore the identity of the accused can not be deisputed in this case.

Section 304-A IPC reads as :

“304-A. Causing death by negligence :-

Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both.

17.In a case u/s.304-A IPC, prosecution has to prove that accused is the person who has driven the vehicle at the time of the accident. In the instant case, the accused was caught hold by the persons present there and he was handed over to the police. No doubt, the accident has occurred at 10-00AM and the accused was shown as arrested at 1-30 PM, this fact does not give any benefit of doubt to the accused in view of the evidence of direct witnesses, those who have stated that they have caught hold of the accused and handed over to the police. PW.1 and 2 evidence in this respect is cogent and consistent. Therefore there is no doubt with regard to the identity of the accused who has committed the offence in this case.

This point is answered accordingly.

CA.101/2012 8

18. Point No. 3:

In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, in the light of the evidence of the witnesses, the citations submitted by the learned counsel for the accused with regard to the rash and negligent act are not applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no material on record to show that there is shifting of scene of offence from one place to another place. Therefore there are sufficient grounds to come to a conclusion that the accused is guilty for the offence u/s.304-A IPC in this case. Learned magistrate has properly appreciated the evidence on record and came to a just conclusion and convicted the accused in this case for the offence u/s.304- A IPC. I do not see any valid grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial court as the judgment is neither perverse nor illegal.

19.In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The Judgment

dt:19-1-2012 in C.C.No.143/2008 passed by the XVII Addl.Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is confirmed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 3rd day of October, 2013.

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE; HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 4th day of October,2013

Present: Sri. G.Shyam Prasad, M.A.,B.Com.,B.L., Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

CRL.REVISION PETITION NO.204/2013 Between:

1. Syed Shameer S/o.Syed Azizuddin, aged 42 yrs, occ:Business, R/o.15-28, Shaheen nagar, Cyberabad.

2.SyedAzizuddin,S/o.Syed Sayeeduddin, aged 70 yrs occ:Business, R/o.15-28, Shaheen nagar, Cyberabad. ...Revision Petitioners/A2 and A3 AND

State of AP through PS.Nampally, Hyderabad.

...Respondent/Complainant

This Petition is filed by the petitioner u/s 397 of Cr.P.C praying that for the reasons stated therein to set aside the orders passed on 18-4-2013 by the XII Addl.CMM, Hyderabad, in MP.5991/2012 in C.C.No.174/2012.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri.M.A.Azeem, Advocate for the Revision Petitioners, this Court made the following:- : O R D E R :

1.This criminal revision petition is arising out of the impugned orders passed on 18-4-2013 by the learned XII Addl.CMM, Hyderabad, in

MP.5991/2012 in CC.174/2012. The Miscellaneous petition filed u/s.239

Cr.P.C for discharge of the petitioners was dismissed by the lower court.

Being aggrieved by the said orders, this revision has been filed.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that the defacto complainant - LW.1 and A1 are childhood friends. A1 has been running bricks business and he has borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from LW.1 and his brother Abdul Raheem, thereafter in the year 2008, again A1 had borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from LW.1 and his brother. Thereafter A1 again 2 borrowed Rs.25,00,000/- from LW.1 for running cement bricks and blocks factory and he has given 8 to 10 cheques without mentioning the dates on the cheques. Accused No.1 has got invested Rs.5,00,000/- for purchasing lands in the name of his brother Syed Shameeruddin, situated at

Mamedipally village, Saroornagar Mandal. Likewise, he invested the amounts. In the year 2011, LW.1 asked A1 to repay the amounts due to him, accused had been postponing to repay the amount and entered into an agreement with LW.2 and upon that agreement, they agreed to pay

Rs.45,00,000/- to LW.1. Accused has promised that he would purchase the plots at Shamsabad with the money advanced by them. but he has failed to purchase any plots nor repaid the money.

3. Learned public prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations against A2 and A3 and there is prima facie case against them for framing charges. The trial court has properly appreciated the material on record and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners, seeking for discharge from the charges, therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4.Learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that the main allegations are against A1 and he was doing business with the defacto complainant and others. There are no specific allegations against A2 and

A3. As there is no prima facie case against A2 and A3, charges against them may be dropped and they may be discharged.

5.The point for consideration is whether the order passed by the learned magistrate dismissing the petition for discharge, is in accordance with the law?

6.Point:

The contention of the learned counsel for revision petitioner that there is no material against A2 and A3 for framing charges against them, cannot be considered now at the stage of framing of charges. The court has to see whether there is prima facie case against the accused or not for framing charges basing on the material on record. The trial court 3 has clearly observed in its order that there is prima facie material for framing charges against A2 and A3. It is also observed that according to the version of prosecution, on the instigation of A2 and A3 only A1 has planned to cheat LW.1 and 2 and collected the amount of Rs.45,00,000/- for developing his business. When the complainant asked the accused for return of the amount, he promised to give 30% share in the profit and also promised to purchase a plot at Shamsabad or Banjara Hills. Accused having promised as such, did not fulfill their promise and cheated the defacto complainant, therefore they committed breach of trust. The observation of the trial court in this regard does not require any interference as the observations of the trial court are neither perverse nor illegal. The trial court has to see the only material available on record, for framing charges against the accused. There is prima facie material for framing charges against the accused and therefore the trial court has dismissed the petition. In fact A2 and A3 have instigated A1 for commission of the offences u/s.406, 420, 506 (1) IPC.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners cited decision reported in 2008 Supreme Court Cases 547 in case of K.Ramakrishna and others Vs.State of Bihar and another and another decision reported in 2008 1 Supreme Court cases (Crl.)507 in case of Onkar Nath

Mishra and others Vs. State (NCT of DELHI) and another.

8.The above decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the facts of the present case, there is prima facie material against A2 and A3. In the complaint Ex.P.1 there is allegation against A2 and A3 that they have abetted Syed Saleem to dupe the complainant and cheat for the said amount. Since there are allegations against the petitioners, unless, witnesses are examined and documents are filed in the case, one cannot arrive at any conclusion that whether cheating and criminal breach of trust was committed or not. The framing of charge is only in respect of the allegations made in the complaint and not seeking documentary proof or any other proof for the allegations for framing charges.

4

9. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that there is no material against the accused to frame charges cannot be accepted in view of the fact that there was allegation against A2 and A3 that they have committed criminal breach of trust and they were also responsible for borrowing huge amounts of Rs.45,00,000/- from LW.1. The trial court has properly appreciated the matter and came to a right conclusion that there is prima facie material against the accused for framing charges.

Therefore, I do not see any valid grounds to discharge the accused.

10.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not see any valid grounds to interfere with the order of the trial court..

11.In the result, revision petition is dismissed. The order dated 18-4-2013 passed by the XII Addl.CMM, Hyderabad, in MP.5991/2012 in

C.C.No.174/2012 is confirmed.

Dictated by me, transcribed by Personal Assistant, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 4th day of October,2013.

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE; HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 7th day of October,2013

Present: Sri. G.Shyam Prasad, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

CRL.REVISION PETITION NO.330/2013 Between:

1.M/s.Mayuka Labs Pvt. Ltd., A-4/2, IDA, Nacharam, Road No.5, near CDC Towers, Hyderabad. 500076. Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Dr.Chandrasekhar.

2.Dr.Chandrasekhar, S/o.N.Krishnamurthy, aged 41 years, Authorised signatory, M/s.Mayuka Labs Pvt .Ltd., A-4/2, IDA, Nacharam, Road No.5, near CDC Towrs, Hyderabad - 500 076.

3.Mrs.Meera, W/o.Dr.Chandrasekhar, aged major, occ: Service, authorised signatory, M/s.Mayuka Labs Pvt. Ltd., A-4/2, IDA, Nacharam, Road No.5, Near CDC Towers, Hyderaba. 500 076. ...Revision Petitioners/Accused AND

M/s.Ram Nath and Company Pvt.Ltd., having its office at 1-8-156/160, Plot No.10, PG Road, Secunderabad - 500003, represented by its Director, R.D.Sharma through his GPA holdersriS.Ramasubramanyam S/o.Sundereshwara Iyer, aged major, R/o. Flat No.1, Peal Aparments, Shamlal building, Begumpet, Secunderabad.

...Respondent/Complainant

This Petition is filed by the petitioner u/s 397 of Cr.P.C praying that for the reasons stated therein to set aside the common orders passed on 21-8-2013 by the XXV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, in MP.1111/2013 and MP.1112/2013 C.C.No.410/2012.

This revision petition is coming before me for final hearing upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri.D.L.Narsimha Rao, Advocate for the Revision Petitioners, and of Sri K.S.Kumar, advocate for the respondent, this Court made the following:- 2 : O R D E R :

1.This criminal revision petition is arising out of the impugned common orders passed on 21-8-2013 by the XXV Special Magistrate,

Hyderabad, in MP.1111/2013 and MP.1112/2013 C.C.No.410/2012.

2.The revision petitioners are the accused and the respondent is the Complainant in CC. 410/2012. The respondent filed petition u/s.311

Cr.P.C before the trial court for recalling of the witness PW.1, and for receiving additional document the certified copy of Written Statement in

OS.520/2011. The trial court had allowed the petition for recall and

receiving of document.

3.Being aggrieved by the said order, this revision is preferred on the following grounds:

That the orders passed by the trial court receiving additional evidence of Written Statement in OS.520/2011 is not relevant for the purpose of the disposal of this case by the trial court, that the trial court has entertained the petition filed u/s.311 Cr.P.C at the stage of 313

Cr.P.C., after completion of examination of the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C

That the said document is filed at a belated stage and therefore the trial court ought to have dismissed the petition. Therefore sought for setting aside the orders passed by the trial court.

4.The point for consideration in this matter is whether there are sufficient grounds to recall PW.1 and receive the document and whether the orders passed by the trial court allowing the petition is in accordance with the law?

5.Point:

The revision petitioners are the accused and the respondent is the complainant in CC.410/2012. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the trial court allowed the 311 Cr.P.C petition, after examination of accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C and it would defeat and delay the 3 proceedings. The contention of the revision petitioners that after examination of accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C, the recall petition cannot be entertained is not a correct proposition of law. No doubt, as per provisions u/s.311 Cr.P.C, court may recall any witness at any stage of the case and receive any document in the interest of justice. The trial court exercised its discretion and received the document, which is the certified copy of the Written statement in OS.520/2011. The trial court had considered the nature of the document and allowed the petition. On the other hand, proceedings u/s.311 Cr.P.C are interlocutory in nature. As per section 397(2) Cr.P.C, no revision is maintainable for revising the interlocutory orders. Receiving of the documents or recall of the witness is in nature of interlocutory proceedings. Therefore the orders passed by the trial court on merits and as well as in view of the legal position are not liable to be set aside.

6.In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The common orders passed on 21-8-2013 by the XXV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, in

MP.1111/2013 and MP.1112/2013 in C.C.No.410/2012 are confirmed.

Dictated by me, transcribed by Personal Assistant, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 7th day of October,2013.

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE; HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 7th day of October,2013

Present: Sri. G.Shyam Prasad, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

CRL.REVISION PETITION NO.326/2013 Between:

1.M/s.Mayuka Labs Pvt. Ltd., A-4/2, IDA, Nacharam, Road No.5, near CDC Towers, Hyderabad. 500076. Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Dr.Chandrasekhar.

2.Dr.Chandrasekhar, S/o.N.Krishnamurthy, aged 41 years, Authorised signatory, M/s.Mayuka Labs Pvt .Ltd., A-4/2, IDA, Nacharam, Road No.5, near CDC Towrs, Hyderabad - 500 076.

3.Mrs.Meera, W/o.Dr.Chandrasekhar, aged major, occ: Service, authorised signatory, M/s.Mayuka Labs Pvt. Ltd., A-4/2, IDA, Nacharam, Road No.5, Near CDC Towers, Hyderaba. 500 076. ...Revision Petitioners/Accused AND

M/s.Ram Nath and Company Pvt.Ltd., having its office at 1-8-156/160, Plot No.10, PG Road, Secunderabad - 500003, represented by its Director, R.D.Sharma through his GPA holdersriS.Ramasubramanyam S/o.Sundereshwara Iyer, aged major, R/o. Flat No.1, Peal Aparments, Shamlal building, Begumpet, Secunderabad.

...Respondent/Complainant

This Petition is filed by the petitioner u/s 397 of Cr.P.C praying that for the reasons stated therein to set aside the common orders passed on 21-8-2013 by the XXV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, in MP.1115/2013 and MP.1116/2013 C.C.No.399/2012.

This revision petition is coming before me for final hearing upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri.D.L.Narsimha Rao, Advocate for the Revision Petitioners, and of Sri K.S.Kumar, advocate for the respondent, this Court made the following:- 2 : O R D E R :

1.This criminal revision petition is arising out of the impugned common orders passed on 21-8-2013 by the XXV Special Magistrate,

Hyderabad, in MP.1115/2013 and MP.1116/2013 C.C.No.399/2012.

2.The revision petitioners are the accused and the respondent is the Complainant in CC. 399/2012. The respondent filed petition u/s.311

Cr.P.C before the trial court for recalling of the witness PW.1, and for receiving additional document the certified copy of Written Statement in

OS.525/2011. The trial court had allowed the petition for recall and

receiving of document.

3.Being aggrieved by the said order, this revision is preferred on the following grounds:

That the orders passed by the trial court receiving additional evidence of Written Statement in OS.525/2011 is not relevant for the purpose of the disposal of this case by the trial court, That the trial court has entertained the petition filed u/s.311 Cr.P.C at the stage of 313

Cr.P.C, after completion of examination of the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C

That the said document is filed at a belated stage and therefore the trial court ought to have dismissed the petition. Therefore sought for setting aside the orders passed by the trial court.

4.The point for consideration in this matter is whether there are sufficient grounds to recall PW.1 and receive the document and whether the orders passed by the trial court allowing the petition is in accordance with the law?

5.Point:

The revision petitioners are the accused and the respondent is the complainant in CC.399/2012. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the trial court allowed the 311 Cr.P.C petition, after examination of accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C and it would defeat and delay the 3 proceedings. The contention of the revision petitioners that after examination of accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C, the recall petition cannot be entertained is not a correct proposition of law. No doubt, as per provisions u/s.311 Cr.P.C, court may recall any witness at any stage of the case and receive any document in the interest of justice. The trial court exercised its discretion and received the document, which is the certified copy of the Written statement in OS.525/2011. The trial court had considered the nature of the document and allowed the petition. On the other hand, proceedings u/s.311 Cr.P.C are interlocutory in nature. As per section 397(2) Cr.P.C, no revision is maintainable for revising the interlocutory orders. Receiving of the documents or recall of the witness is in nature of interlocutory proceedings. Therefore the orders passed by the trial court on merits and as well as in view of the legal position are not liable to be set aside.

6.In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The common orders passed on 21-8-2013 by the XXV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, in

MP.1115/2013 and MP.1116/2013 C.C.No.399/2012 are confirmed.

Dictated by me, transcribed by Personal Assistant, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 7th day of October,2013.

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE; HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 7th day of October,2013

Present: Sri. G.Shyam Prasad, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

CRL.REVISION PETITION NO.325/2013 Between:

M/s.Mayuka Labs Pvt. Ltd., A-4/2, IDA, Nacharam, Road No.5, near CDC Towers, Hyderabad. 500076. Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Dr.Chandrasekhar.

2.Dr.Chandrasekhar, S/o.N.Krishnamurthy, aged 41 years, Authorised signatory, M/s.Mayuka Labs Pvt .Ltd., A-4/2, IDA, Nacharam, Road No.5, near CDC Towrs, Hyderabad - 500 076. ...Revision Petitioners/Accused AND

M/s.Ram Nath and Company Pvt.Ltd., having its office at 1-8-156/160, Plot No.10, PG Road, Secunderabad - 500003, represented by its Director, R.D.Sharma through his GPA holdersriS.Ramasubramanyam S/o.Sundereshwara Iyer, aged major, R/o. Flat No.1, Peal Aparments, Shamlal building, Begumpet, Secunderabad.

...Respondent/Complainant

This Petition is filed by the petitioner u/s 397 of Cr.P.C praying that for the reasons stated therein to set aside the common orders passed on 21-8-2013 by the XXV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, in MP.1117/2013 and MP.1118/2013 C.C.No.395/2012.

This revision petition is coming before me for final hearing upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri.D.L.Narsimha Rao, Advocate for the Revision Petitioners, and of Sri K.S.Kumar, advocate for the respondent, this Court made the following:- : O R D E R :

1.This criminal revision petition is arising out of the impugned common orders passed on 21-8-2013 by the XXV Special Magistrate,

Hyderabad, in MP.1117/2013 and MP.1118/2013 C.C.No.395/2012.

2

2.The revision petitioners are the accused and the respondent is the Complainant in CC. 395/2012. The respondent filed petition u/s.311

Cr.P.C before the trial court for recalling of the witness PW.1, and for receiving additional document the certified copy of Written Statement in

OS.526/2011. The trial court had allowed the petition for recall and

receiving of document.

3.Being aggrieved by the said order, this revision is preferred on the following grounds:

That the orders passed by the trial court receiving additional evidence of Written Statement in OS.526/2011 is not relevant for the purpose of the disposal of this case by the trial court, that the trial court has entertained the petition filed u/s.311 Cr.P.C at the stage of 313

Cr.P.C., after completion of examination of the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C

That the said document is filed at a belated stage and therefore the trial court ought to have dismissed the petition. Therefore sought for setting aside the orders passed by the trial court.

4.The point for consideration in this matter is whether there are sufficient grounds to recall PW.1 and receive the document and whether the orders passed by the trial court allowing the petition is in accordance with the law?

5.Point:

The revision petitioners are the accused and the respondent is the complainant in CC.395/2012 (Old Cc.1949/2010). The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the trial court allowed the 311

Cr.P.C petition, after examination of accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C and it would defeat and delay the proceedings. The contention of the revision petitioners that after examination of accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C, the recall petition cannot be entertained is not a correct proposition of law. No doubt, as per provisions u/s.311 Cr.P.C, court may recall any witness at any stage 3 of the case and receive any document in the interest of justice. The trial court exercised its discretion and received the document, which is the certified copy of the Written statement in OS.526/2011. The trial court had considered the nature of the document and allowed the petition. On the other hand, proceedings u/s.311 Cr.P.C are interlocutory in nature. As per section 397(2) Cr.P.C, no revision is maintainable for revising the interlocutory orders. Receiving of the documents or recall of the witness is in nature of interlocutory proceedings. Therefore the orders passed by the trial court on merits and as well as in view of the legal position are not liable to be set aside.

6.In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The common orders passed on 21-8-2013 by the XXV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, in

MP.1117/2013 and MP.1118/2013 C.C.No.395/2012 are confirmed.

Dictated by me, transcribed by Personal Assistant, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 7th day of October,2013.

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

HYDERABAD.