Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Pinnika Madhusudhana Rao, S/O. Gangaiah – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh, (Markapur Town Police Station), Rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati – Respondent
ORDER:
Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) feeling aggrieved by the order of declining to discharge the Petitioner/Accused No.2, vide order dated 11.03.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2025 in S.C.No.47 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 120-B, 323, 341 and 302 read with 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C.,’).
2. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned Counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, argued that the impugned order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate is patently illegal, improper, and contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge committed a manifest error in declining to consider the discharge petition filed under Section 227 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ solely on the ground that the petitioner had previously invoked the revisional jurisdiction challenging the cognizance order passed by the learned Additi
The court emphasized that the absence of cogent reasoning in rejecting a discharge petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. constitutes a procedural irregularity, warranting remand for fresh conside....
The need for a reasoned order while passing an order of discharge and the essentials of framing charges under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
The Court determined that at the charge framing stage, a strong suspicion based on available evidence is sufficient to proceed with the trial.
The trial court's jurisdiction is limited, and it should not unduly interfere, and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie.
Point of Law : Once charges have been framed, the issue of discharge becomes redundant, as Courts have no jurisdiction to allow discharge after charges having been framed.
The court emphasized the limited scope of the court's jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code at the stage of framing of charges, highlighting the need to accept the material brought on record....
At the discharge stage, the court must determine if prima facie evidence exists to frame charges, assuming the prosecution's material is true without conducting a detailed inquiry.
word "ground" according to Black's Law Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition connotes foundation or basis, and in the context of prosecution in a criminal case, it would be held to mean bas....
The court emphasized the necessity for a prima facie case to be established before proceeding to trial, underlining a judge's role in evaluating evidence without conducting a full trial.
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
