CRLA/1153/2017 of THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP., Vs MOHD. KALEEMULLAH , KALEEM, HYD AND ANR., on 3 December 2025

rN rHE HtcH couTfSfDrHE srArE oF TELANGANA WEDNESDAY-THtr Tl,ron h. r - - -",16?,'dHiilB'XRJfr[8,[,?ffi uu* PRESENT Crl.Appeal Under Section 328 (g) & (1) of Cr.p.( ::,::.'fi;: 1[Hi zgiicor. on the ri,e or,^.' ":11TJ[ #*ffi1i; THE REDDY IN/AND Between The state of Telangana rep. by the public prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad AND ...APPELLANT/ Com pta ina nt OF 1' Mohd' Kareemurah @ Kareem, s/o. Late Mohd. Habeebulrah, aged 52 years 2' Mohd' wariurah Sameer, s/o. Mohd. Kareemurah, " svs\r rrz vt (Both are in occuo fi,iiTiir'#i#$,{,,'}r'.;-Hf"i,:,*:q:ei{iil,?::l;'rft ffi , Accu6ed r''vvrqucr\r'' ...RESPONogruTsl Petition under section 5 of Limitation.Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the afrioaylt fited in :Lor"o.of 1!.,9 #iitil;: the Hish Court may be pleased to condong.rh. derav or;-[n 9"yr;; ir p;;;;;iing the appear againsr the order of acquitta, oll!",":"rJ.oir*pondents in 5 c.rv". 27912011 0n thelire of rhe Metroporitan Sessions Judge. Hvalilo.o, dated 29.4.20 1 6.

fu*-n' :r',,:; ,, ""lt' ' i-' G o u nse r ro r the Ap pe r I a nt, i$l irls3il?tE $3TRB St c uro n CounselfortheRespondentNo.2/AccusedNo.2:SRIv.SURENDERRAo The Court delirrered the following COMMON JUDGMENT :

IN TI{E HIGH COURT FOR "l STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD :"* THE HON'BLE SRI JUS-TICE K. LAKSHMAN THE HON'BLB SRT JUST'". TT?ITI RAMAKRTSHNA REDDY Y irland DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03.12.202s Between 3[i:ffi;:]]r;:ana represented bv the pubric prosecuror, High AND Appellant. Mohd. Kaleemullah and another. Respondents. COM VION J tJ DC t\{ E NT ( pcr t{o n,bte Sri Justice K. Lakshnan) Hearcr Mr.Syed yasar Mamoon, rearned Additionar Public prosecutor appearing for the appellant _ State and Mr'V'surender Rao, Iearned counser for respondent No.2/accused No.2. 2' During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this court that accused No. r is no more and learned counser for respondent No'l has filed a memo along with copy of the death certificate of resPondent No. I /accused No' t '

3. I.A'No'1 of 2017 is fited to condone the detay of 427 daysinpreferringthepresentappealchallengingtheJudgment dated2904.2ol6inS.C.No.279of20tlpassedbythelearned Metropotitan Sessions Judge' Hyderabad' acquitting the accused.

4. In paragraph No'3 of the atfidavit f,rled in support of I.A.No.tof20|T,itisstatedtlrattireirrrpugnedJudgmentwas pronoullcedon29.04.2016.Anapplicationwasmadefortlre certified copy of ttrc Judgurcnt arrd it was made ready on 10.05.i}0l6.AtterobtairrirrgJudgrnetttcopy,theCommissioner ofPolice,HyderabadCity,settttlreSametlrroughproper channe[totheleartteclAdditionalPublicProsecutor, Hyderabad,forlrisopirriorr.At.terreceiptoftheJudgment copy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has offered his oprnrorl 0n 16-05-2016 and sent the sanle through proper channel to the co,r,rissio,er. or. porice, Hyderabad city. o, I

t recerpt of the said opinion, vide his Lr.No.L&O/Nr5/5g 2g/20t6, dared 03.06.2016, senr rhe proposar to the learned pubric prosecutor, which was received on l6-06.2016- Learned pubric prosecutor sent his opinion to the Government on 13.07.2016 to sanction the permission to file the appear. Government in its G.o.Rt.No .572, dated 07 '09.20r6, accorded sanction to fire the present appear, which was received by the office of the rearned pubric prosecutor only on 07. 10.2016. Learned public prosecutor sent message to the commissioner of porice, Hyderabad city, on 04. rr.2016 to depute the concernecr ofticer to fire the delay affidavit. on receipt of trre said infbrrnation, the Sub-Inspector of porice, Banjara Hiils porice Station, was deputed to fire deray application and accordingly, he filed the affidavit. The said affidavit was sworn and fired on 05. tL.2016. Learned pubric Prosecutor tiled the present appear on 23.0g .2017.Thus, there is a delay at every stage. q I I

5. Though the affidavit was sworn on 05' ll'2016' the present appeal was filed only on 23'08'2017' Thus' there is a delayof:ilmostten(10)months'Therefore'theexplanation offeredbythestatetocondonethedelayof42Tdaysin preferrinlS the appeal is not satisfactory'

6. In the light of the same' l'A'No'l of 2017 is tiabte to be dismissedandaccordingly,itisdismissed.Consequently, Crl.A.No.1153 of 2017 is hereby dismissed' As a sequel thereto' ttliscellan pending; in the Criminal Appeal shatl eous aPPtications, if anY' stand closed. //TRUE COPY// sd/- P. cH NAGABHUSHAMBA REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, 1, 2,

The lVletropolitan Sessions Judge' Hyderabad' The llt Additional Chi;i yjtopoitrn Magistrate, Hyderabad' The titation House otri."i, etniarahitts -Police Station, Hyderabad' Two ocs to public pi"r""rt"r, Hign court for the State of relangana at P HYderabad. (OUT)

5. one r3C to s'ri V.'sunruDER RAo' Advocate (oPuc)

6. Two'OD CoPies kUYDL \*

HIGH COURT DATED:03t1212'025 () COMMON JIJDGMENT l.A. NO. 1 0'F 2017 IN'AND DISMISSN{G THE I.A. NO. I OF 2OI7 AND CRL.APPEAL 1 ) !ri8 ilm * *

I c\