Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Kilari Anand Paul – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. Rep PP – Respondent
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the order dated 14.02.2017 in R.C.No.1816 of 2017 in Cr.No.229 of 2012, passed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, in taking cognizance against the petitioner/Accused No.1 and Accused Nos.2 to 4.
2. It should be pointed out at the threshold that the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, instead of taking cognizance against the offence, has taken cognizance against the accused. The Hon’ble Apex Court in S.K.Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited (2008) 2 SCC 492) held at paragraph No.20 that cognizance is taken an offence and not of an offender. The learned Magistrate missed this fundamental principle in Criminal Cases while taking cognizance.
3. The revision case is maintainable as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551), wherein at Paragraph Nos.9 and 10, it is held as under:
“9. ...Sometimes the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court has also been resorted to for the same kind o
S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer vs. Videocon International Limited
Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra
Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Damodar Behera vs. State of Orissa (1996 CrLJ 344 (Ori.). (Para 48) – Relied.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.