RACHAMALIA SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1992-10-22
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 16,1992

RACHAMALIA SURESH KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

T. RAMULU VS. STATE OF A.P. [REFERRED TO]
URAVAKONDA VIJAYARAJ PAUL VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Revision Petitioners who are A-3 and A-4 in the Sessions case (hereinafter referred to as A-3 and A-4) and two others who were arrayed as A-1 and A-2 were charged under Sections 120-B, 395, 397 and 438 I.P.C. by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur in S.C.No.267/89. The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur after examining P.Ws.1 to 18 including the driver P.W.10, held all the accused guilty for the offences under Sec.120-B I.P.C. and sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year; held that all the accused were found guilty for the offence under Section 395 I.P.C. and sentenced all the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year; held that all the accused were found guilty of the offence under Section 397 1PC and sentenced all the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and lastly held that all the accused guilty for the offence under Section 399 I.P.C. and sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year each, The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused for the offence under Section 438 I.P.C. He further directed that P.Ws.1 and 4 be paid each Rs.1,000/- out of the fine amount if received. Aggrieved by the said sentences and convictions, A-3 and A-4 (the present revision petitioners) filed Criminal Appeals 118 and 117 respectively, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Guntur. The learned Sessions Judge, Guntur by his judgment dated November 19,1990 allowed both the appeals by a common judgment. The result portion of the said judgment is as follows:
"In the result, the convictions and sentences passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, in his judgment dated 29-6-1990 and passed in S.C.267/89 not only against the appellants herein who are A-4 and A-3 but also against A-1 and A-2 who have not preferred any appeal are set aside. I further direct that the fine amounts if paid by all or any of A-1 to A-4 shall be refunded to them. I further direct that the order dated 24-4-89 passed by the learned V Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in P.R.C.7/89 on the file of the said court is quashed and set aside and I further direct that the case shall be remitted back to the V Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur with a direction to restore the same to its original number against-A-1 to A-4 and conduct enquiry afresh according to law and by examining the approver before it and by following the procedure prescribed under Sec.306 Cr.P.C. besides keeping in view the observations herein before made. As already the case is a very old one, the learned V Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur is directed to expedite the enquiry and the appellants herein who are A-4 and A-3 shall put in their appearance before the V Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur without any further summons or notice on 5-12-1990. I further direct that A-1 and A-2 who have not preferred any appeal and who are said to be undergoing imprisonment shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not otherwise wanted in any other crime and if either or both of them were on bail during the trial of the case and both the appeals are accordingly allowed."

(2.)Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners filed the present revision stating that the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing further enquiry is not in accordance with law. As such, it has to be seen whether the learned Sessions Judge erred in directing further enquiry in accordance with law.
(3.)Before proceeding further, it has to be seen that P.W.10 the driver was not admittedly examined in the committal court and the same is fatal for the committal proceedings, as laid down in Vijayaraj Paul vs. State.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.