Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Ambati Venkateswarlu & Others S/o Yellamanda – Appellant
Versus
State Of A.P. Through the Sub-Inspector of Police – Respondent
ORDER :
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.
The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C') against the judgment dated 18.06.2009 in Crl.A.No.18 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Excise Court, Ongole vide judgment in C.C.No.53 of 2007 dated 27.01.2009 against the petitioners/A2 to A5.
2. A1 Ambati Chinnammai was died and the case against her was abated before the learned Trial Court.
3. As the petitioners and A1 had not supported the case of the prosecution in S.C.No.79 of 2004 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, while convicting the accused therein ordered for prosecution of the petitioners for resorting to perjury as contemplated under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , (for short 'the I.P.C'). Ironically, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole instead of adopting procedure contemplated under Sec.195 of 'the Cr.P.C .,' he himself gave a direction to the Station House Officer, Santhanuthalap
Cognizance of perjury under Section 193 IPC cannot be taken without following the procedure outlined in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.
The trial court's conviction under Section 188 IPC was invalid due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements of Section 195 Cr.P.C., leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Cognizance of certain offences under the Indian Penal Code can only be taken on a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or by the Court or officer authorized by the Court, as per the p....
Cognizance for contempt must be taken by the court where original proceedings are pending; failure to do so violates the mandatory requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Cognizance of offences under specific sections of IPC must adhere to procedural requirements outlined in CrPC; failure to follow these renders such actions invalid.
The court ruled that initiating perjury proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C requires clear evidence of falsehood that impacts judicial proceedings, not mere inaccuracies.
Petitioner has not been confined for illegal purpose amounting to commission of offence. As such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the liberty granted to him by filing the complaint under Sect....
Cognizance of specific IPC offences requires a written complaint by a public servant under Section 195, and its absence invalidates related convictions.
The trial court can summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only if there is more than a mere prima facie case supported by evidence.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
