2017 - AP HIGH COURT DIGEST - JUNE 5 Whether the investigating officer can grant station bail to accused while dealing with him under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C when the offence is a special Act offence under ST & SC Act?- yes-

 The offences alleged in the instant case are under Sec.323, 506 IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of SC, ST (POA) Act, 1989. All the aforesaid offences are punishable with a term less than 7 years. Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Sec.41 and 41-A Cr.P.C, squarely apply to them and those Sections have not made any express distinction between the offences punishable under IPC and other Special enactments. Therefore, the contra view expressed by learned Addl. Junior Civil Judge, is incorrect. The explanation of the SDPO Madanapalle dated 13.04.2017 shows that since the offence was punishable below 7 years of imprisonment and as the accused had not failed to comply with the terms of notice under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C, the I.O did not consider it necessary to arrest the accused. Therefore, the I.O granted station bail by securing the bail bonds of the sureties on behalf of the accused. This procedural order under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C cannot be equated with an order passed by a Court under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. Therefore, in my view, there is no procedural violation. Consequently, the committal Court is directed to submit the bail bonds produced before the I.O by the accused and sureties to the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, in which case they shall be deemed to be the due compliance under Sec.209(a) of Cr.P.C by the Sessions Court.

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