logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1408 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Revision Case No. 1576 of 2008
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Parties : Appisetty Siva Satyanarayana Versus Gorantla Purna Chandra Rap & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Posani Akash, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 03-08-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 397/401 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case being filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.10.2008 passed in Crl.A.No. 346 of 2007 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Guntur District partly confirming the Judgment dated 16.10.2007 passed in CC.No. 552 of 2006 by the V Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur.

IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 2158 OF 2008)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail after suspending the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the judgment dated 16.10.2007 passed in CC.No. 552 of 2006 by the V Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, which was partly confirmed by the Judgment dated 21.10.2008 passed in Crl.A.No. 346 of 2007 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that death certificate of the petitioner could not be secured.

2. A report is placed on record regarding the present status of the petitioner. It appears from the report of the Station House Officer, Narasaraopet I Town Police Station, that when the police authority proceeded to trace out the accused in the address, it has been reported by ward revenue secretary of Ward No.19 that the petitioner has sold out his house 15 years back and went away from the said address.

3. On enquiry learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has received the knowledge of demise of the petitioner from his counterpart of learned trial Court.

4. This matter is pending since 2008.

5. At this juncture, it is quite difficult for this Court to proceed with this old matter, since the petitioner has expired as reported by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also whereabout of the petitioner was not traced out by the police authority.

6. In view of the above, it is appropriate to dispose of the instant criminal revision case on recording the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as infructuous.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal