Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA, J
G. Venkateswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case of the prosecution (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners requested to quash (Para 4) |
| 3. prosecutor contended (Para 5) |
| 4. points that arise for consideration (Para 6) |
| 5. acquittal of co-accused (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. serious allegations against petitioners (Para 22) |
| 7. criminal petition is dismissed (Para 23 , 24) |
ORDER :
2) The case of the prosecution is that crime No.140 of 1995 was registered against 8 persons. Accused Nos.1 to 8 are known to each other and very close associates. With avowed ideology of the Peoples’ War Group, the members of P.W.G. and their associates organised attacks on law abiding citizens whom they dub as class enemies. Magunta Subbarama Reddy was a member of Parliament and elected on the Congress-I Ticket in the year 1991 from Ongole Constituency, Prakasam District and one of the leading industrialists of South India. He was a sole distributor for the Mcdowell Brand Liquor for South India. After he became a Member of Parliament in the year 1991, he started taking keen interest in his constituency by promoting several welfare schemes and was serving many poor persons and the downtrodden. One V.Na
The acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically entitle other accused to quash proceedings; each case must be evaluated on its own merits.
Point of law: Quash of criminal proceedings – Dismissed - Judgment of acquittal is not admissible under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act and the benefit cannot be extended.
The acquittal of co-accused does not automatically warrant quashing of charges against an absconding accused; trials may proceed if evidence against absconders remains.
The acquittal of co-accused necessitates the quashing of charges against similarly situated accused, reinforcing the doctrine of parity in criminal proceedings.
The doctrine of parity applies, allowing for the quashing of proceedings against an accused when co-accused have been acquitted on similar charges.
Proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when prosecution witnesses turn hostile and there’s insufficient evidence, indicating a lack of prospect for conviction.
The court affirmed that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly, emphasizing that acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically warrant quashing proceedings....
The acquittal of co-accused does not bar the prosecution of other accused who have not faced trial, and each case must be decided on its own evidence.
Confessions of co-accused alone are insufficient for conviction; substantive evidence is necessary for criminal charges to proceed.
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
