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

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Kilari Anand Paul – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. Rep PP – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Party-in-Person
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP)

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

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