CRLRC/2641/2012 of K.Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of A.p., rep. by P.P on 31 December 2013

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMARCRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2641 of 2012--Dated 31122013

Between:K.Srinivasa Rao and another.

....Petitioners.

And:State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its PublicProsecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

…

Respondent.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMARCRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2641 of 2012ORDER:

This revision is preferred against the order dated 15-10-2012 in Crl.M.P.No.2001 of 2012 in C.C.No.334 of2008 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate,(Excise), Vizianagaram.

2. The brief facts leading to this revision are asfollows:

Petitioner herein filed Crl.M.P.No.177 of 2009 in thesaid C.C.under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge themfrom the offence with which they are charged in thecharge sheet. Learned trial judge by an order dated 4-7-2011 dismissed the said application for non-prosecution. As against that, the petitioners preferred Criminal Revisionto the sessions court, Vizianagaram in Crl.R.C.No.32 of2011 and the I Additional District Judge, Viziaanagaramby order dated 19-6-2012 allowed the revision by settingthe order in Crl.M.P.No.177 of 2009 of the trial court anddirected the trial judge to restore the petition subject to thecondition of petitioners attending the trial court on 13-7-2012. On receipt of orders from the revisional court, trialcourt advanced the C.C. from 23-7-2012 to 13-7-2012 and recorded absence of revision petitioners and reposted the main case to 23-7-2012. On 23.7.2012,an order is passed dismissing the Crl.M.P.No.177 of 2009as per direction of the revision court and posted the casefor examination of accused to 7-8-2012 thereafterthe revision petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.2001 of 2012requesting the trial court to restore Crl.M.P.No.177 of 2009by recording their presence. In that application, it iscontended that their counsel took delivery of the order ofthe revisional court on 13-7-2012 and theycould not attend before the trial court due to ill- health andthere is no willful negligence on their part in not attendingthe trial court on 13.7.2012. Learned trial judgedismissed the application considering the fact that thepetitioners have not complied the directions of therevisional court and observed that he has no jurisdiction toentertain the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Now aggrieved by the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.2001 of2012, the present revision is preferred.

3. None appeared for the revision petiotner on18-12-2013 when this matter has come up before thiscourt and this court directed learned Additional PublicProsecutor to verify as to the stage of Criminal casebefore trial court. On the request of the learned publicProsecution, two adjournments are granted and finally, ithas come up for hearing today. To day also noneappeared for revision petitioners.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor furnished copy ofinformation received by him from the S.I. of Police,Vizianagaram dated 31-12-2003 I Town Police Stationand according to which, the said C.C.No.334 of 2008 ispending and posted to 24-1-2014 for trial.

5. As seen from the record, the revisionpetitioners are facing trial for the offences under Sections420, 470,120-B read with 34 I.P.C.

6. From the information received by the Publicprosecutor from the prosecuting agency, the main C.C. is

posted to trial. No doubt there is no procedure to dismissa criminal case for default. The trial judge dismissed thedischarge petition for non prosecution without there beingany procedure. Revisional court rightly rectified themistake by setting aside the dismissal order and gaveopportunity to the revision petitioners to put forth theircase before the trial court. But in spite of such anopportunity, they have not appeared before the trial courtand the learned trial judge complied the directions of therevisonal court and dismissed the discharge petition. Asagainst that order, without preferring any revision, apetition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed before the trialcourt with a request to record their presence on 23-7-2012to which date, the main case stands posted. The learnedtrial judge dismissed that application holding that he hasno jurisdiction to entertain petition under Section 482Cr.P.C. Now that order of the trial court is challenge here.

7. According to the grounds of revision, the maincontention of the revision petitioners is that they could notcomply with the directions of the revisional court as theircounsel did not receive certified copy of the order. Butthat cannot be valid reason to get exempted fromappearance in the court. As rightly observed by the trialcourt, it has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions ofSection 482 Cr.P.C. which is exclusive inherentjurisdiction of the High Court. As seen from the record,even here in this court, revision petitioners have notevinced interest and did not appear for any of theadjournments after 13-11-2013. When the main case is atthe stage of trial, it is to be inferred that charges arealready framed because only after framing of charges,cases will be posted for trial.

8. So considering all these aspects, I am of theview that there are no merits in the revision and the sameis liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

10. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, theMiscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall standdismissed.

_______________________

JUSTICE S.RAVI

KUMAR

--Dated 31122013Dvs.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

Dvs

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2641 of 2012

--Dated 31122013