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

RADHAKRISHNA RAO
Varla Krishna & Chinna Krishna – Appellant
Versus
State of A. F. C. B. C. I. D Vijayawada – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. T. Bali Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners filed Crl. M.P. Nos. 1360, 1369, 1409 and 1511 of 1988 in Crime No 46/88 of Chilakaluripet Police Station under Sec. 167 (2) Cr. PC to release them on bail on the ground that the statutory period of 90 days of their judicial custody expired by the time the charge-sheet is filed into court, as the petitioners are ready to produce sureties to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. The case of the petitioners is that the police report was filed before the Magistrate on 18-7-1988 at 12-20 p.m. but the court did not take cognizance of the case set out in the charge-sheet and it was returned. The charge-sheet was again filed on 1-8-1988 which was also returned for compliance of omissions and the same was filed on 17-8-1988 and the court took cognizance of the same. The contention of the State was that the police report was filed on 18-7-1988 at 12.20 p.m. setting out the offences alleging against the accused. The court took cognizance of the offence set out in the charge-sheet against the accused on 20-7-1988, but returned the charge-sheet to supply some omissions that were found in the charge-sheet. Since the court applied its mind judiciously to the police repo

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