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

1971 Supreme(Mad) 533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA AT GUNTUR
Kondaiah and A.D.V. Reddy, JJ.
Karri Adi Reddy, In re. .....In Re.
Crl.A. No. 417 of 1970.
Decided On : 06 August 1971

Advocates:
C. Krishna Reddy, Peri Subbarao and T. Bali Reddy, for Appellant.
The Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State, for Respondent.

Letters Patent appeal lies against such order.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898-Sections 476, 476-A, 476-B and 195(3) -Letter Patent-Clause 15- Scope-Direction given to Dy. Registrar for preferring complaint by the order of single Judge of High Court-Held, against such order L.P.A. can be filed instead of filing criminal appeal u/s 476 B.

       

Kondaiah, J.-The Original Suit, O.S. No. 75 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, filed by one Gunnam Satyanarayana Murthy, on the foot of an agreement dated 5th March, 1963 against Karri Adi Reddy, the appellant herein, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,702 Was decreed only for a sum of Its. 14,973-21. Our learned brother, Parthasarathi, J., before whom A.S. No. 351 of 1966, preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the trial Court came up for hearing, confirmed the decision of the trial Court. The learned Judge agreed with the finding of the trial Court that Exhibits B-1 and B-2, the documents filed and relied upon by the appellant herein, are false documents intended to be used in the case in support of his pleas. Certain account books sought to be tendered as additional evidence were also commented upon by the learned Judge. At the time of the pronouncement of the judgment in the case, the learned Judge indicated the expediency of directing prosecution of the appellant. Thereafter, the case was reposted for further hearing on this aspect. After hearing the representations of both the Counsel, and on a consideration of the entire material, the learned Judge was of the opinion that it was expedient and necessary in the interests of justice that an order should be made, in accordance with the provisions of section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the Deputy Registrar of the High Court to file a complaint on the basis of the findings expressed by him in the Judgment. In pursuance of the direction of the learned Judge, a complaint has been filed. Against the order passed by the learned Judge under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, this Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant.

2. Then the appeal came up before us for final hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection that no Criminal Appeal lies against an order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court passed under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, in the course of a civil appeal decided by him, but only a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to a Division Bench of this Court would lie. This claim of the Additional Public Prosecutor was strenuously resisted by Sri Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant contending inter alia that his client has a statutory right of preferring a Criminal Appeal under section 476-B, Criminal Procedure Code, and the present appeal has been validly filed and is maintainable.

3. On hearing the contentions of both the learned Counsel, the question that arises for decisions, whether on the facts and in the circumstances, it is a Criminal Appeal under section 476-B, Criminal Procedure Code, as contended by the appellant, or a Letters Patent, Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent that should be filed against an order of a single Judge of this Court directing the Deputy Registrar to prefer a Complaint under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, on the basis of the findings and opinion expressed by him in his Judgment in (Civil) A.S. No. 351 of 1966 and in the application for admission of additional evidence.

4. For a proper appreciation of the respective contentions, it is necessary to advert to the material provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Letters Patent of this Court. The answer to the question turns upon the scope and the interpretation of the provisions of sections 476, 476-A, 476-B and 195(3), Criminal Procedure Code, and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and their application to the present case.

5. The present sections 476, 476-A and 476-B, have been substituted for the original section 476, by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (XVIII of 1923). Section 476 empowers any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court to record a finding that, in its opinion, it is expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry should b














































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top