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

1993 Supreme(AP) 81

IYYAPU PANDURANGA RAO, G.RADHA KRISHNA RAO
Appu Ramani – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Case came up before this Bench on a reference made by our learned brother A. Gopal Rao, J. , on the controversy as to whether the date of filing of the complaint/charge-sheet in Court has to be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation or whether the date on which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate has to be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation.

( 2 ) THE petitioners-accused were prosecuted for an offence under Rule 3 of the A. P. Sandal Wood and Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules 1969 read with Section 29 (2) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and they were convicted under section 29 (4) (a) (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and sentenced to suffer R. I. for six months each, by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Piler, in Calendar Case No. 33 of 1988, by his judgment dated 20-2-1990. On appeal, the same was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor, in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1990, by his judgment dated 12-11-1991. Having been aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor, the present revision is filed by the petitioners-accused.

( 3












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