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

1959 Supreme(AP) 219

BASI REDDY
Chimata Rangayya – Appellant
Versus
Guntupalli Ramaiah – Respondent


BASI REDDY, J.

( 1 ) I fail to see any illegality or impropriety in the order made by the learned District Judge affirming the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, directing the laying of a complaint against the first petitioner for offences under Sections 193, 196, 465 and 471 I. P. C. and (or offences under Sections 465, 193 and 196 read with Section 109 I. P. C. against the 2nd and 3rd petitioners.

( 2 ) THE two points taken in this revision petition are : (1) that the District Munsif has acted without jurisdiction in laying a complaint in the exercise of his powers under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code because the appropriate provision of law applicable to this case is Sub-section 5 of Section 479-A, and in such a case, action under Section 476 is prohibited by Sub-section 6 of Section 479-A, Cr. P. C. and (2) that in the circumstances of the case and particularly having regard to the long lapse of time, the courts below have erred in holding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to launch a prosecution against the petitioners.

( 3 ) AS regards the first point, I am clearly of opinion that Sub-section 5 of Section 479-A has no application to the facts




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