Nation Current Affairs 02 Nov 2017 Complainants not &ls ...

Complainants not ‘victims’: Hyderabad High Court

DECCAN CHRONICLE.
Published Nov 2, 2017, 2:46 am IST
Updated Nov 2, 2017, 2:46 am IST
While allowing the appeal the bench quashed the appeal pending before the sessions court.
Hyderabad High Court said that the remedy to ‘victims’ under the CrPC Section 372 cannot be extended to them to file an appeal before the sessions court.
 Hyderabad High Court said that the remedy to ‘victims’ under the CrPC Section 372 cannot be extended to them to file an appeal before the sessions court.

Hyderabad: In a significant ruling, the Hyderabad High Court has held that complainants under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 do not come under the definition of victim. The court said that the remedy to ‘victims’ under the CrPC Section 372 cannot be extended to them to file an appeal before the sessions court against an order of acquittal in a case arising out of a private complaint, by treating them as ‘victims’ within the meaning of CrPC Section 2(wa).

A division bench comprising Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar and Justice Dr Shameem Akhter was answering a reference by a single judge whether the complainant in a case for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the 1881 Act was a victim as defined under CrPC Section 2(wa) as amended by the Act No. 5 of 2009.

 

The reference came before the bench in an appeal by Ms P. Vijaya Lakshmi questioning the action of Metropolitan Sessions Judge in entertaining an appeal by Ms S.P. Sravana and another under Section 372 of CrPC against her acquittal in a cheque bounce case.

The bench after perusing the CrPC and Act 1881 ruled that even though there may be private complaint cases where the accused are ‘charged’, unlike a complaint case arising under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, they still cannot aspire to maintain an appeal against an order of acquittal in such a case under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code. While allowing the appeal the bench quashed the appeal pending before the sessions court.

 

Gali wants jewels back
Mining baron Gali Janardhan Reddy has approached the Hyderabad High Court seeking release of gold ornaments worth of Rs 2.94 crore seized by the CBI in the illegal mining case of Obulapuram Mining Corporation.He moved another petition seeking release of his passport and permission to visit London from November 5 to 20 for the first wedding  anniversary of his daughter.

The Special CBI court of Hyderabad had recently turned down a petition seeking the release 53,789.900 grams of 105 gold ornaments in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner. When the petition came up for hearing, Justice A. Shankar Narayana recused and directed the Registry to place it before Chief Justice to post the case before another judge.

 

Only civil court can cancel deed
Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao differed with the order of a single judge granted in September holding that the sub-registrar had the power to cancel the sale deed. The judge said that the power to cancel the sale deeds rests with the civil court. Justice Ramachandra Rao was dealing with a petition by Mr R. Satish Yadav challenging the cancellation of his sale deed by the sub registrar on the request of a tahasildar.

Advocate-general D. Prakash Reddy said that the single judge while dismissing a batch of petitions by city resident Vatumalli Laxmi Prasanna and others had ruled that sub-registrars had power of cancellation. Justice Ramachandra Rao said that he had nothing do with the ruling but as per the law it was civil courts to decide the title and rights of the land. The judge stayed the order of the sub-registrar cancelling the sale deeds of the petitioner.

 

Court irked by TS, AP officials
The Hyderabad High Court pulled up the AP and TS governments for their dereliction in providing information sought by it with regard to violations committed by private bus operators. A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili said that it appeared that both the governments were trying to protect the errant operators.

The bench was dealing with a PIL by city advocate K.V. Subba Reddy seeking a direction to the governments to frame guidelines for effective implementation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and AP Motor Transport Workers Rules, 1963. The bench questioned the transport and labour departments why they had not submitting information on action taken against the operators who had not registered with the labour department. The bench said that if the officials failed to place the details before November 7, the chief secretaries would have to appear before the court.

 

...
Location: India, Telangana, Hyderabad




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
-->