V. Venkata Prasad

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: V.VENKATA PRASAD,

SESSIONS JUDGE.

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, 2013

CRL.M.P.NO.288/2013

(CR.NO.25/2013 OF SABBAVARAM P.S.)

Between:

Smt. Akula Sanyasama, W/o late EswaraRao, Hindu, aged 35 years, Kapu by caste, Cooly, Housewife, residing at Ammulapalem village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District Petitioner/Accused And:

The State of A.P. Rep. by the Addl. Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam.

Respondent/Complainant

This petition has come up today before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.P. Naidu, Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused; of Sri M.Venugopala Rao, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State; upon hearing their arguments, and the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

ORDER

1.This is an application filed under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail.

2.The offence alleged is under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC.

3.Petitioner was arrested on 10.3.2013.

4.Heard both sides and perused Case Diary.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that this petitioner is falsely implicated in this case and that the petitioner is a house wife and that the petitioner was advised not to lead conjugal life with her husband as he was having incurable disease and as such her husband bore grudge against some of the villagers and abused them in filthy language and those enemies of the deceased might have terminated the husband of the petitioner and that her son 2 was also arrested and produced before the Juvenile Court and he is having another minor son who lost the care of mother and that the petitioner is permanent resident of Ammulapalem village and she will abide by any condition imposed for grant of bail.

6.It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was lepor and as such the petitioner was not leading conjugal life with him but the deceased forced her to live with him and as such the petitioner waited for an opportunity to do away with her husband and accordingly she along with her son committed murder of her husband.

7.The learned Public Prosecutor reported that the investigation is pending.

8.Petitioner was arrested about a month ago. The offence alleged is murder. The minimum sentence for the offence of murder is life imprisonment.

9.Thus, the offence is grave one. Investigation is also pending.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition.

10.In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant,

corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 15 th

Day of April, 2013.

SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

3

DRAFT EP 6/2010:

1.This E.P. is filed for the arrest of J.Drs. 1 and 2on the ground that the

J.Drs. failed to satisfy the award dt. 30.6.08 despite having sufficient means and that the J.Drs. are doing transport business and that they are avoiding to pay the decreetal amount.

2.First J.Dr. remained ex-parte.

3. 2nd J.Dr. filed counter stating that this petition under order 21 rule 97 CPC is unsustainable since the J.Dr. is not having sufficient means and that he is an un- employee and that he does not possess any property and that this EP against this

J.Dr. without proceeding against 1st J.Dr. initially is unsustainable and that the calculations made are incorrect.

4.On enquiry, P.W.1 was examined on behalf of the D.Hr. 2nd J.Dr.

examined himself as R.W.1.

5. Both sides exhibited no document.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Perused the record.

8.Now the point for consideration is whether order of arrest can be ordered against J.Drs. 1 and 2?

POINT:

9.During his Chief-examination P.W.1 who is the Branch in charge D.Hr.

testified that J.Drs. 1 and 2 are having movable and immovable properties and that the 1st J.Dr. is doing transport business and that he is also working as brokerage agent for selling vehicles and that he is earning a sum of Rs.16,000/- p.m., and that the 2nd J.Dr. is doing transport business and working as driver and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m., and that the J.DRs. 1 and 2 transferred their assets in the names of their family members to avoid lot of debts and that they are having sufficient means and that they have intentionally avoiding payment.

10.R.W.1 who is the 2nd J.Dr. testified that he does not possess any property and that the D.Hr. seized his vehicle AP 31 U 8799 and that presently he is doing 4 coolly work and that he is only the guarantor in this case and that he has no means to repay the loan.

11.Except stating that the 2nd J.Dr. is having movable and immovable properties and that he alienated the same in favour of his family members, no documentary evidence is produced by the D.Hr. to show that the 2nd J.Dr. is having any means to repay the loan. There is no dispute that the 2nd J.Dr. also purchased a lorry with the finance granted by the D.Hr. and the D.Hr. seized the said vehicle and seized the same. 2nd J.Dr. is only a guarantor in this case. Of course, he is liable to pay the decreetal amount along with the 1st J.Dr. But the burden lies on the D.Hr.to prove that the J.Drs. are having sufficient means but they are avoid to repay the loan or that they are bent upon to leave the jurisdiction of this Court or that they have alienated or that they are alienating their properties to avoid repayment of loan.

12.In the instant case, 1st J.Dr. did not turn up to contest the matter. He remained exparte. R.W.1 also admitted that the 1st J.Dr.is doing transport business. Therefore, the arrest of 1st J.Dr. can be ordered and his means enquiry can be made in his presence after his production on arrest.

13.But as far as the 2nd J.Dr.is concerned, there is no clinching evidence on record to show that the 2nd J.Dr. is having sufficient means to pay the amount awarded or that he is alienating any such property. Ipsidixit of P.W.1 cannot itself establish the grounds under Sec. 51 CPC or Order 21 rule 37 CPC against the 2nd

J.Dr. who vouched safe that he is not having any means to repay the loan.

14.Therefore, it cannot but be held that the D.Hr. failed to establish the means of the 2nd J.Dr. or any of the ground contemplated under sec. 51 CPC or under order 21 Rule 37 CPC. Therefore, this E.P. against 2nd J.Dr. entails in dismissal.

But arrest of 1st J.Dr. can be ordered under Order 21 Rule 38 CPC.

15.This point is accordingly answered.

RESULT:

5

16.In the result, this E.P. against 2nd J.Dr. is dismissed but this E.P. against the 1st J.Dr. is allowed to issue warrant of arrest under Order 21 Rule 38 CPC against 1st J.Dr.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15th day of April, 2013.

Prl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Appendix of evidence

No. of witnesses examined for Petitioner/D.Hr.:Respondents/J.Drs.:

P.W.1 … M. Srinivasa RaoR.W.1 … P. Eswara Rao

No. of exhibits marked -Nil -

Prl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

6

DRAFT IN TOP 1484/2012:

1.This is an application filed by the defendants 1 to 5 and 7 in

O.S.2105/2007 on the file of VI Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for transfer

of the said suit to IV Addl. District Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam for trial of the same along with O.S.211/2010 on the ground that O.S.2105/07 was filed for relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner by the respondents and that first respondent alone filed O.S.211/2010 for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of this petitioner and that both the matters are coming up for trial and to avoid any inconsistent judgments, it is desirable that both the suits are tried by one Court.

2.R.1 and R.2 appeared through their Advocates but they did not file any counter and remained exparte.

3.R.3 also remained exparte.

4.When the matter was posted for orders petition was filed to set aside the exparte order by the respondents 1 and 2 but the petition was returned, it was represented with another petition but the same were returned on 22.3.2013 the same are not represented though the matter is adjourned from time to time.

5.Thus, the respondents remained exparte.

6.Now the point for consideration is whether O.S.2105/2007 on the file of

VI Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam can be transferred to the file of IV Addl.

District Judge, Visakhapatnam as prayed for?

7.The copy of plaint filed in O.S.2105/07 discloses that respondents 1 and 2 in this transfer O.P. filed the said suit for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property which is a building with the 1st and 2nd floors.

The plaint copy in O.S.211/2010 on the file of IV Addl. District Judge discloses that the first respondent filed the said suit to declare that six documents executed by R.1 to R.3 in favour of one K. Sulochana are illegal. The said suit does not carry any schedule but the door number mentioned in the body of the plaint in

O.S.211/2010 and the door number of the building referred in the schedule in

7

O.S.2105/07 is 49-34-23/2. Therefore, it appears that both the suits relate to the

same property. But, yet the suit in O.S. 2105/07 is only filed for the relief of permanent injunction basing on possession. Whereas the suit filed in

O.S.211/2010 is the suit for cancellation of the sale deeds. Therefore, the matters

relevant for consideration in both these suits are totally different. The suit on the file of VI Addl. Jr. Civil Judge is a part heard suit and is coming up for defendant’s side evidence. At that stage defendant directed the present transfer

O.P. It is not a case where it is not known pendency of O.S.211/2010. That suit was filed in the year 2010. In the circumstances stated supra there cannot be any divergent judgments in both these suit as the suits are filed for different reliefs.

Therefore, I do not see any merit in this application.

8.This point is accordingly answered.

RESULT:

9.In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15th day of April, 2013.

Prl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: V.VENKATA PRASAD,

SESSIONS JUDGE.

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, 2013

CRL.R.P.NO. 04/2013

Against the orders in Crl.M.P. 75/2013 on the file of JMFC,

Narsipatnam

(CR.NO.131/2012 OF MAKAVARAM P.S.)

Between:

Kommoji Nanaji, S/o Appalachari, Hindu, Aged 30 years, carpenter, Gopanna Veedhi, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District Petitioner/3rd party And:

1. Kirlampalli Nookaraju, S/o Konda Babu, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Carpenter, Atchutapuram, Visakhapatnam District.

2. Kirlampalli Srinu, S/o Ramana Babu, Hindu, Aged 25 years, Carpenter, Atchutapuram, Visakhapatnam District.

3. Kirlampalli Prasad, S/o Kameswara Rao, Hindu, Aged 30 years, Carpenter, Atchutapuram, Visakhapatnam District.

4. Kirlampalli Raju, S/o Kameswar Rao, Hindu, Aged 22 years, Carpenter, Atchutapuram, Visakhapatnam District.

5. Kirlampalli Avataram, S/o Konda Babu, Hindu, Aged 43 years, Carpenter, Atchutapuram, Visakhapatnam District.

6. Kirlampalli Rama Rao, S/o Gavaraya, Hindu, Aged 28 years, Carpenter, Atchutapuram, Visakhapatnam District.

7. Mathurthi Ganesh, S/o Brahmanandam, Hindu, Aged 20 years, Carpenter, Godicherla, Nakkapalli Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District.

8. Koduru Srinu, S/o Chinnodu, Hindu, aged 31 years, Carpenter, G. Koduru, Makavarapalem Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. … Respondents/Accused Nos. 1 to 8

9. The state, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam. … Respondent/Complainant 2Crl.R.P. 4/2013

This petition has come up today before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.L. Ali, Advocate for the Petitioner/3rd party and Sri E. Suribabu and Sri M.V.R. Pantulu, Advocates for the respondents 1 to 8 and Sri M. Venugopala Rao, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.9-State; upon hearing their arguments, and the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

ORDER

1.This is a Criminal Revision Petition questioning the dismissal of

Crl. M. P. 75/2013 filed in Cr. No. 131/2012 on the file of

Makavarapalem Police Station before the Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Narsipatnam for return of motor cycle of Bajaj Discover

make 150 BS 111 bearing No. AP 31 BG 7940.

2.When an application was submitted before the Court concerned under Section 451 of Cr. P. C. for return of property, the learned

Magistrate dismissed the said petition on 17.1.2013 stating that the

offence under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of

Sessions.

3.Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed stating that the order of the trial Court is contrary to law and that the motor cycle is presently in the custody of police in view of the directions from the trial Court and that the order of the learned

Magistrate that he has no jurisdiction to dispose of the said petition is

incorrect. Thereby the revision petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the trial Court and to grant interim custody of the vehicle.

4.Accused filed memo reporting no objection for return of the vehicle.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Perused the record.

7.Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the trial

Court in refusing the return of the motor cycle is incorrect?

POINT:

3Crl.R.P. 4/2013

8.The crime record is lying with the committed Court. As alleged by the petitioner the property was produced before the learned

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam and as per the

orders of the trial Court the motor cycle is said to be lying with the police for safe custody. As seen from the order of the learned

Magistrate, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application only

on the ground that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions. As things stand now it is not known from the order of the

trial Court from whom the said vehicle was seized. But as seen from the certified copy of the petition contents the vehicle was seized from the 8th accused. As stated supra, the accused reported no objection. It is not known whether the learned Public Prosecutor before the Court concerned, filed any counter opposing the said interim custody application. The order of the trial Judge does not disclose that the learned Public Prosecutor filed any counter opposing the petition. As seen from the order of the learned trial Judge it can be seen that the learned Public Prosecutor simply contended that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 451 of Cr. P. C.

The learned trial Judge simply stated in his order that the decision reported in 2012 (1) ALD (Crl.) 787 (A.P.) discloses that the said interim custody application was filed before the District Court and as such he was of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was not competent to entertain the said petition.

9.It is for the learned Magistrate in whose custody the said vehicle is available to decide whether or not the said vehicle can be returned to the party for interim custody. It is not a case of crime weapon. The panchanama is lying with the trial court and the copy of the panchanama is not filed by the appellant also. As things stand now there is no material on record to show as to why the said motor cycle was seized by the prosecuting agency. As the crime record is lying 4Crl.R.P. 4/2013 with the learned Magistrate and as the crime is still pending with the learned Magistrate and as the vehicle not in his custody it is for the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam to decide whether or not the said motor cycle can be returned to the petitioner for interim custody.

10.The decision reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638 in the

case in between Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat

the Honourable Supreme Court of India issued guidelines for disposal of property including vehicles under interim custody.

11.At paragraph 17 of the said judgment the Honourable Supreme

Court of India held that it is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also held that such an action can be taken up even during the Pendency of the application for interim custody. Therefore, evidently the order of the learned

Magistrate dt. 17.1.2013 filed in Cr. No.131/2012 by the petitioner

herein is contrary to the directions of the Honoruable Supreme Court of India in the afore said mentioned case. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate in refusing to entertain this petition on the ground of want of jurisdiction is devoid of any merits. Therefore, the order of the learned magistrate dt. 17.1.2013 made in application under

Sec.451 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner herein in Cr. No. 131/2012 is liable to be set aside. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in India, it is a fit case to direct the learned Magistrate to dispose of the said application at once in the light of the decision reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638 in

the case in between Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of

Gujarat .

12.This point is accordingly answered.

5Crl.R.P. 4/2013

RESULT:

13.In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the order dt. 17.1.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Narsipatnam in the application filed under Section 451 Cr.

P. C. by the petitioner herein in Crl.M.P.No.75/13 on its file in

Cr.No.131/2012 on the file of Makavarapalem Police Station is be and hereby set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the said application afresh in the light of the guidelines issued by the

Honourable Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in AIR

2003 Supreme Court 638 in the case in between Sunderbhai

Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15th day of April, 2013.

Sd/- V.Venkata Prasad,

Principal District Judge,

Visakhapatnam //TCBO//

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,

DISTRICT COURT, VSP.

To

The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsipatnam.

BEFORE THE LOKA DALAT AT VISAKHAPATNAM

Constitute by District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam

(under Section 19 of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987)

Saturday, the 29th day of April Two Thousand Thirteen

L.S.A.No.270/2013 In M.O.P.No.138/2011 (In the Honourable Court of Principal District Court at Visakhapatnam)

Present: 1. Sri G.Gopichand, B.Sc.,M.A.,LL.M., II Addl. District Judge, Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat Bench, Visakhapatnam.

2. Smt. K.Nga Kumari, Advocate.

3. Sri P.K.Lingeswara Ro, Social Worker.

Between:

Aswin Ramanujam, S/o R.D.Prasad, Hindu, aged 28 years, r/at D.No.4-11-7/1, near Government School, Main Road, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner

And:

1. Yeddala Ramana, S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, aged not known to the petitioner but major, owner of the van bearing Registration No.AP 31 TA 4079, r/at D.No.5-6, Dibbapalem, Vemagottipalem, Gidijala, Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam.

2. Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Area Manager, Area Office, D.No.10-1-8, 3rd Floor, Landmark Complex, Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam,

Respondents

Brief Particulars of the Petition:

The petition is filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents claiming compensation for the injuries due to the accident to caused by the Driver of the Respondent No.1.

This Petition was referred to the Lok Adalat at the request of both parties on memo filed by the Advocate for the Petitioner and Advocate for the Respondent No.2 by the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District & Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam.

This petition is coming on 20.04.2013 for final settlement in the presence of Petitioner and Respondent No.2 and Sri K.Sasibhushana Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri V.Parthasaradhi, Advocate for the 2nd Respondent. Both parties to the petition have

2

agreed for amicable settlement and filed terms of compromise with free will and volition. Hence, the following Award is passed as per the settlement arrived by the parties.

AWARD UNDER SEC.21 OF THE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987

1. Petitioner and the Officer representing Respondent No.2 present and represented that the matter is settled for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees Two Lahs Forty Thousand only) towards full and final settlement of the claim amount.

2.The 2nd Respondent is directed to pay t he above said amount of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand only) within one month from the date of this Award; otherwise it shall carry interest of 7.5% per annum till the date of deposit.

3.The Petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand only) and the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) shall be kept in any Nationalized Bank for a eriod of three years.

4.The Petitioner not pressed the claim against the Respondent No.1 in view of the compromise with the Respondent No.2.

5.The Court Fee paid shall be refunded under section 21(1) r/w Section 25 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

Both parties have affixed their signatures in evidence of their consent for the terms of award.

Signature/L.T.I. of PetitionerSignature of Respondent No.2 (Insurance Company)

Signature of Advocate for PetitionerAdvocate for Respondent No.2

Given under our hands and the seal of Lok Adalat on this the 29th Day of April, 2013 at District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam.

1.

2.

Members of Bench PRESIDING JUDGE,

LOK ADALAT BENCH,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: V.VENKATA PRASAD,

SESSIONS JUDGE.

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, 2013

CRL.M.P.NO.351/2013

(Cr. No. 140/2013 of Bheemili P.S.)

Between:

Darana Jayasilam Mohana Kumar, S/o D.S. Koton, Christian, aged 46 years, r/o D.No. 8-57-119/1, Adarshanagar, Chittivalasa, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District Petitioner/Accused And:

State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam. Respondent/Complainant

This petition has come up today before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y.R.S. Prakasha Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner; of Sri M.Venugopala Rao, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State; upon hearing this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

This is an application filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. by the

Petitioner/Accused for grant of regular bail.

2.The alleged offences are under Sections 354, 323, 506 of IPC.

3.The petitioner was arrested on 3.4.2013.

4.It is vehemently contended for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and that he is the executive body member of London Mission Church and he also occupied different positions in the Executive Committee previously and that de- facto complainant committed several acts to misappropriate funds and therefore the de-facto complainant was terminated from the services of Pastor and a civil suit was also filed by the de-facto complainant and a false case was filed in

Cr.No.322/2012 previously but the police did not apprehend the petitioner and as such this false case is filed and that he is the sole bread winner of family and that he would abide by any condition imposed for his release.

5.The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner committed similar offence previously also and that the petitioner abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language and tore her blouse and removed the sary and also 2 attacked the pastor. It is also contended for the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation is pending.

6.The allegations made against the petitioner are grave. He was arrested only on 3.4.2013. Investigation is still pending. Therefore, this petition bears no merit at this stage.

RESULT

7. In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Typed by Bench Typist to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 16th Day of April, 2013.

SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: V.VENKATA PRASAD,

SESSIONS JUDGE.

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, 2013

CRL.M.P.NO.344/2013

(Cr. No. 8/2013 of Anakapalle Town P.S.)

Between:

Ethalapaka Manga Raju, S/o Apparao, Hindu, aged 35 years, Driver R/o Thotada Village, Mungapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District Petitioner/Accused And:

State, represented by the Addl. Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam. Respondent/Complainant

This petition has come up today before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.V.V Gajapathi, Advocate for the Petitioner; of Sri M.Venugopala Rao, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State; upon hearing this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

This is an application filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. by the

Petitioner/Accused for grant of regular bail.

2.The alleged offences are under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC.

3.The petitioner was arrested on 9.1.2013.

4.It is contended for the petitioner that the petitioner has been languishing in jail for the last 90 days and that he is the sole bread winner of his family and that he was implicated in this case and that he would abide by any condition imposed for grant of bail.

5.The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the bail under section 167

Cr.P.C. on the ground of expiry of remand period of 90 days vest with the

Magistrate concerned but not the District Court. There cannot be any dispute with

the said proposition.

6.The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the investigation is still pending and that the case where the accused stabbed the deceased resulting in instantaneous death on road.

7.Thus the offence alleged is grave one. Life imprisonment is the minimum sentence for the offence of murder. Investigation is still pending. Therefore, I do not see any merit in this application at this stage.

RESULT:

8.In the result, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move the learned Magistrate concerned under Section 167 Cr.P.C.

Typed by Bench Typist to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 16th Day of April, 2013.

SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.