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

1979 Supreme(AP) 99

Yeduruparthi Kamakshamma – Appellant
Versus
T. Taranadh – Respondent


( 1 ) SRI K. V. Ramana Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the order passed bv the lower Court is not in accordance with the provisions of section 245, criminal Procedure Code.

( 2 ) THE circumstances under which the order was passed are as follows: The complainant was not present on 2nd February, 1978 to which date the case was posted for continuation of the examination of the complainant. Previously the complainant was examined in part in chief, But on 2nd February, 1978, the complainant could not attend the Court and sent a petition for the reasons mentioned therein for adjournment. In the petition for adjournment it was stated that her grandmother died on 24th January, 1978 and the ceremonies would be performed on that day at another place i. e. , at Repalle village and hence she and her relatives had to go to that place and she could not therefore attend the court. The lower Court dismissed that petition. But it did not stop there, it passed an order as follows:"complainant is absent. All the accused present. Petition to adjourn the case is dismissed. Prosecution is closed. As there is no evidence to proceed further, accused are discharged under section





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