Back
2010 Supreme(AP) 78
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
V.V.S. Rao, Samudrala Govindarajulu, J.
State of Andhra Pradesh : Appellant
Versus
Avunoori Srikanth : Respondent
Crl. A MP No.3116 of 2009
Decided On : Feb 15, 2010
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code – Section 378(2) (3), 477 , 374(2), Sections 231 and 233 – Appeal against acquittal - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302, 341 and 506 – Offence of murder – These three miscellaneous petitions are filed by the State represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking condition of inordinate delay in representing criminal appeals against the acquittal can be disposed of by this common order - All the petitions are accompanied by the affidavit of the Manager in Public Prosecutors office and are similar giving identical reasons justifying the delay - Criminal Appeal respondents were acquitted by the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge Sessions Case - They were charged for an offence under Section of Indian Penal Code respondents entered the plea of not guilty - Regular elaborate trial was conducted and as noticed supra by judgment dated prosecution case was thrown out by Sessions Court giving benefit of doubt to the accused. Aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents the State preferred after obtaining necessary information from the Government appeal was returned by the Registry pointing out that an application to condone the delay in filing appeal is required to be filed - As per the practice of the Court, the appeal shall have to be represented within a period of seven days - Now this appeal is represented with delay days Aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents State preferred after obtaining necessary information from the Government appeal was returned by the Registry pointing out that an application to condone the delay in filing appeal is required to be filed – Court the appeal shall have to be represented within a period of seven days - It was not done - Now this appeal is represented with delay days –Held, Oral evidence in a Sessions Case which forms Part-II of record as Sessions Case is tried as a warrant case it is clear that though the judgment in a Sessions Case is to be retained for a period of twenty years the oral evidence need to be retained only for a period of three years. As noticed supra MOs exhibited in the trial of criminal cases are to be retained in the criminal Court only till the expiry of time prescribed for filing an appeal and in case an appeal is filed for a period of 90 days after expiry from the date of judgment Section of Cr.PC providing for an appeal to the High Court against conviction by the Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge is an effective remedy provided by the law - After an appeal is admitted the High Court shall have to send for the records of the case and hear the appeal with regard to the validity of the finding of guilt and with regard to legality of sentence appellate Court may reverse finding and sentence and acquit the accused and in case the appeal is from an order of acquittal reverse the order of Sessions Court and direct that the accused be retried - Therefore the hearing of an appeal so as to be effective must be with reference to the evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence in the trial in accordance with Sections of respectively - Belated appeal even if it is with the leave of the Court as contemplated under Section of without record would certainly be a futile exercise - This is not a case where appeal is filed with the entire record that came into existence during the Sessions trial. Except a copy of the judgment of the Court other record is available – Court are not inclined to condone inordinate delay in representing appeal to the Registry – Petitions are dismissed.
V.V.S.RAO, J.
(1) These three miscellaneous petitions are filed by the State represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeking condonation of inordinate delay in representing criminal appeals against the acquittal, can be disposed of by this common order. All the petitions are accompanied by the affidavit of the Manager in Public Prosecutor's office and are similar giving identical reasons justifying the delay.
(i) Criminal Appeal (SR) No.10015 of 2004 The respondents - Avunoori Srikanth and Kalwala Jagan - were acquitted by the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, by judgment dated 16.3.2004, in Sessions Case No.54 of 2003. They were charged for an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The respondents entered the plea of not guilty. Regular elaborate trial was conducted and as noticed supra, by judgment dated 16.3.2004 (about six years ago), prosecution case was thrown out by Sessions Court giving benefit of doubt to the accused. Aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents, the State preferred Crl.A. (SR) No.10015 of 2004 on 14.6.2004, after obtaining necessary information from the Government. The appeal was returned by the Registry pointing out that an application to condone the delay in filing appeal is required to be filed. As per the practice of the Court, the appeal shall have to be represented within a period of seven days. It was not done. Now this appeal is represented with delay of 1615 days.
(ii) Criminal Appeal (SR) No. 20628 of 2005 The respondents - Reddy Malta Reddy and Reddy Pami Reddy - were acquitted by the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court, Nizamabad, by judgment dated 15.3.2005, in Sessions Case No.193 of 2004. They were charged for an offence under Sections 302, 341 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The respondents entered the plea of not guilty. Regular elaborate trial was conducted and as noticed supra, by judgment dated 15.3.2005 (about five years ago), prosecution case was thrown out by Sessions Court on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents, the State preferred Crl.A. (SR) No.20628 of 2005 on 21.11.2005, after obtaining necessary information from the Government. The appeal was returned by the Registry pointing out that an application to condone the delay in filing appeal is required to be filed. As per the practice of the Court, the appeal shall have to be represented within a period of seven days. It was not done. Now this appeal is represented with delay of 1343 days.
(iii) Criminal Appeal (SR) No.21341 of 2005 The respondent - Thalapala Kamakshi - was charged for an offence under Sections 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, in Sessions Case No.224 of 2001. She entered the plea of not guilty. Regular elaborate trial was conducted. By judgment dated 17.3.2005 (about five years ago), she was convicted for the offence under Sections 304 Part It and 324 of IPC. However, Sessions Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Aggrieved by the finding of Sessions Court, the State preferred Crl.A. (SR) No.21341 of 2005 on 30.11.2005, after obtaining necessary information from the Government. The appeal was returned by the Registry pointing out that an application to condone the delay in filing appeal is required to be filed. As per the practice of the Court, the appeal shall have to be represented within a period of seven days. It was not done. Now this appeal is represented with delay of 1349 days.
(2) WE have heard learned Public Prosecutor. In the affidavit filed by Manager of Public Prosecutor's office, it is stated that one Sri Ganeswara Rao, who is Manager in-charge of filing appeals against the acquittals retired on 31.5.2004, that thereafter Sri T.M.Y. Swamulu, became Manager, but he was suspended in view of disciplinary
