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

1976 Supreme(AP) 95

K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY
Patpanchala China Lingaiah – Appellant
Versus
State Inspector of Police, nandigama – Respondent


K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) 1. The point that falls for consideration in this revision case is whether the Sessions Court can have power under section 319 Cr. P. C. of 1973 to add any person as an accused to be tried along with the accused committed by the magistrate.

( 2 ) THE facts that have given rise to this question may briefly be stated. The inspector of Police, Nandigama, filed a charge sheet in the Court of the Judicial first Class Magistrate, Nandigama under sections 147, 323, 324 and 302 read with section 149 I. P. C. against 14 accused persons and the same was taken on file as P. R. C. No. 4 of 1975 and was committed to the Court of Session, krishna under Section 209 (a) Cr. P. C. on 24-6-1975. The same was numbered as sessions Case No. 29 of 1975. Thereafter the petitioner complainant filed criminal Misc. Petition No. 1115 of 1975 on 7-8-1975 to include the 2nd respondent as an accused on the ground that there wa sufficient evidence and material against the said person who dealt the fatal blow on the deceased, the complainant s younger brother. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the additional Public Prosecutor, passed an order on 16-8-1975 adding the 2nd respo







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