Amendment of complaint under sec.200 of Cr.P.C.- Allowed - Evidence recorded - took cognizance and issued summons to the Accused

  Amendment of complaint under sec.200 of Cr.P.C.- Allowed - Evidence recorded - took cognizance and issued summons to the Accused - Challenged - High court declined - Apex court held that In the instant case, the  amendment  application  was  filed  on
24.05.2007 to carry out the amendment by adding  paras  11(a)  and  11  (b).
Though,  the  proposed  amendment  was  not  a  formal  amendment,   but   a
substantial one, the Magistrate allowed the amendment application mainly  on
the ground that  no  cognizance  was  taken  of  the  complaint  before  the
disposal of amendment application.
Firstly, Magistrate  was  yet  to  apply
the judicial mind to the  contents  of  the  complaint  and  had  not  taken
cognizance of the matter.
Secondly, since summons was yet to be ordered  to
be issued to the accused, no prejudice  would  be  caused  to  the  accused.
Thirdly, the amendment did not change the original nature of  the  complaint
being one for defamation.
Fourthly, the publication of  poem  ‘Khalnayakaru’
being in the nature of subsequent event created a new  cause  of  action  in
favour of the respondent which could have been prosecuted by the  respondent
by filing a separate  complaint  and  therefore  to  avoid  multiplicity  of
proceedings, the trial court allowed the amendment application.
Considering
these factors which weighed  in the mind of the courts below, in  our  view,
the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the order  passed  by  the
Magistrate allowing the amendment application and the  impugned  order  does
not suffer from any serious infirmity warranting  interference  in  exercise
of jurisdiction under Article  136 of the Constitution of India. -2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

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

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

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