SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(AP) 85

BILAL NAZKI
K. Rajagopala Rao – Appellant
Versus
P. Radhakrlshna Murthy – Respondent


BILAL NAZKI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. Since the controversy involved is very short, the revision petition is being disposed of at this stage with the concession of the learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) IT appears that the petitioner moved an application under Section 340 of the code of Criminal Procedure (for short the code ) seeking prosecution of the respondent on the ground that he had fabricated a document in a proceeding which was pending before the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. Surprisingly the trial court in its order stated, "at the outset this petition is not maintainable u/s. 340 Cr. P. C. . because criminal Procedure Code is not applicable in the civil proceedings. Any how. I am considering thisjpetition u/s 151. CPC but the point arose for my consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief?" It is settled law that Section 340 of the Code is applicable to all proceedings in all Courts irrespective of the fact whether the matter in a Court in which allegedly an offence mentioned in Section 195 of the code was committed, was a criminal case or civil case. Even Section 340 of the Code is applicable to the Revenue



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top