PENUMATCHA CHINA HANUMANTHARAJU Vs. MARISETTI RAMANNA
LAWS(APH)-1955-4-9
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 15,1955

PENUMATCHA CHINA HANUMANTHARAJU Appellant
VERSUS
MARISETTI RAMANNA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NALLA BALIGADU V. STATE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PRABHAT SHARMA VS. HARI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA [LAWS(ALL)-1988-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
PENUMATCHA LAKSHMI NARAYANARAJU VS. PADALA CHELLAREDDY [LAWS(APH)-1960-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
DUVVURI RAMI REDDI VS. DUVVUDU PAPI REDDI [LAWS(APH)-1962-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SALAM VS. ISMAIL [LAWS(KER)-1992-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
RAVEENDRAN VS. SOBHANA [LAWS(KER)-2007-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
SARJUG SINGH VS. GULABO KUER [LAWS(PAT)-1968-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KAREEM VS. T GOPALAKRISHNAN NAMBISAN [LAWS(KER)-1989-10-53] [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND RAM VS. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MORADABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1988-5-62] [REFERRED TO]
SURATI ABDUL SATTAR VS. HAJEE MD. ABDUL RAHIM SURATI & ANR. [LAWS(KAR)-1981-7-48] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a revision against the order of the learned District Magistrate, Eluru, West Godavari, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Sub-Magistrate discharging five of the seven accused.
(2.)The facts that gave rise to the revision may be briefly stated. The petitioner filed a complaint against seven accused under section 427, Indian Penal Code, alleging that the said accused damaged and destroyed cocoanut seedlings which he had planted along the Rameswaram Channel bund between mile 1/5 and 1/7, and caused damage to him. The learned Sub-Magistrate, after recording evidence, discharged the five respondents under section 253, Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant preferred a revision to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate mainly relying upon the decision of the Madras High Court in In re Jayaraman, (1948) 1 M.L.J. 341: I.L.R. 1949 Mad. 137. dismissed it on the ground that a revision does not lie against a discharge order pending final disposal of the case. Hence, the revision. The short question in this revision is whether a revision lies against the discharge order made by the Magistrate in respect of some accused pending final disposal of the case. Govinda Menon, J., in In re Jayaraman considered this question and made the following observations at page 138 :
"In my opinion, the proper time at which the propriety of a discharge like the one in question here can be agitated in revision is only after the Court of enquiry or trial has finally disposed of the matter. It would not be proper for a Magistrate discharging some accused and framing charges against others to express any definite opinion regarding the credibility or otherwise of the witnesses examined for the prosecution."

(3.)Later on, the learned Judge proceeded to state :
"As a matter of practice and convenience, it would always be better if the applications by the prosecution for setting aside orders of discharge in cases where charges have been framed against some of the accused alone or against all the accused under some sections alone, were made only after the Cou-f finally disposes of the matter."

;


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