Sec.498 A ,506 of I.P.C.- Sec.3&4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act -Criminal Revision Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC - Non framing of Charges under Sec.3&4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and No discussion of charges framed under sec.506 I.P.C. in judgement as if it is not framed - liable to be set aside - without permission a Defacto complainant can file Revision in police/Calender Case - Act. 5/90 was introduced with effect from 31-12-2009 and as the criminal revision is filed in the year - being revisional court , it can not disturbed the acquittal order and as such remanded the case for fresh trial after framing charges required -2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

charges were framed for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC and the accused were
tried for the said offences with which they were charged.  And, no
charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The trial court had framed two charges namely one under Section 498-A
and another under Section 506 of the IPC and examined the accused with
reference to the said charges on 19.10.2006.
But in the impugned
judgment, there was no reference to the charge under Section 506 of the
IPC against the accused; and, strangely the court below had dealt with a
charge under Section 420 of the IPC though no charge was framed against
the accused for the said offence.

Whether the judgment impugned is liable to set aside in
the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of
the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner?

Therefore, this court is of the well considered view that the judgment of
the trial court is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
Indisputably, this case arises out of a police report.  By the
judgment impugned, the trial court recorded a finding of acquittal
against the accused.
 The State did not prefer any appeal.  The present
revision case under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC is preferred by the
informant/victim who is the wife of A1.
The informant/petitioner did
not seek leave of this court for preferring an appeal and had not
preferred any appeal.
 Under Section 372 of the CrPC, no appeal shall lie
from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by
the Code or by any other law for the time being in force.
 By the time
this criminal revision was instituted in the year 2008, the proviso which
was introduced by Act 5/09 with effect from 31.12.2009 was not on the
statute book.
Therefore, since the case arises from a police report and as
the calendar case was taken on file pursuant to the police report, a
revision is maintainable.
 However, Section 401(3) of the CrPC says
nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to
convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising the
powers of revision.
Therefore, in the light of the legal position and the
facts peculiar to the case, the only course open to this court is to remit
the matter to the trial court for disposal of the matter afresh in
accordance with the procedure established by law.
In view of the said
decision of this court to remit the matter to the trial court for fresh
consideration of the case on merits in all respects, this court did not
examine the credibility and reliability and adequacy or otherwise of the
evidence in regard to the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC.
Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed and the
judgment of the court below is hereby set aside and the matter is
remitted to the trial court for fresh disposal of the case on merits in
accordance with the procedure established by law having regard to the
charges specifically framed against the accused.
It is made clear that
the trial Court is at liberty to frame any other additional charges, if
necessary, against all or any one of the accused by following the
procedure established by law.
 However, it is also made clear that the
prosecution as well as the accused are at liberty to recall any witness
already examined either for examination in chief or cross examination as
the case may be and also to adduce further evidence, if any, which the
law permits.
The trial court shall consider the entire evidence on record
in proper perspective while disposing the case afresh on merits.- 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS