AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The interesting point that arises in this revision petition is whether paper publication can be issued when it is brought to the notice of the Court that in spite of sending notices either by registered post or acknowledgement due service could not be effected.
Sri Ella Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no procedure prescribed either under the Criminal Procedure Code or Criminal Rules of Practice with regard to publication of notices in newspaper.
On 27-8-1990 my learned brother Bhaskar Rao, J. passed following order :
"The petitioner''s counsel is permitted to send the notices by registered post with acknowledgement due Post after two weeks".
That order not having been complied with, the matter was posted before my learned brother N. D. Patnaik, J. on 9-4-91, who directed thus :
"The learned counsel for the petitioner represents that though he sent notice by registered post, he is not having the acknowledgement with him now. The petitioner is directed to take notice to the respondents both through Court and also by registered post Ack. due within two weeks".
Again, on a petition filed by the revision petitioner, Crl. Misc. Petition No. 2688 of 1989 on 31-10-1991, I directed as follows :-
"There shall be direction to publish in "Andhra Bhoomi" daily on or before 29-11-1991".
My learned brother D. J. Jagannadha Raju, J., before whom the matter was posted again for noncompliances on 20-12-1991, ordered thus :-
"Post the matter on 30-12-1991 for arguments regarding the question whether service of notice by publication is valid as per the Code of Criminal Procedure and Criminal Rules of Practice.
When that order too was not complied with, the matter came up for the fifth time on 27-1-1992 before my learned brother Eawara, Prasad, J., who made an order on the following lines :
"Notice was issued to the respondents I and 2 several times, but notices were returned unserved. In such circumstances, there shall be a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Medak District at Sangareddy to get the notices issued by this Court served on the respondents through Police. Post after service".
Finally, the matter has again come up before me today, i.e., 6-3-1992, the above said order not having been complied with.
The order passed by one judge on criminal side cannot be reviewed by another judge. That is what the Criminal Jurisprudence says. When there is no procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure of Rules of Practice with regard to service of notice the procedure under the CPC may be followed. The Criminal Law does not say that in the case of a revision, if service of notice is not effected on the opposite side, the service has to be effected in a particular way. In the absence of any procedure prescribed in this behalf, the only procedure to be followed is by directing the notices to be published in a local newspaper.
Coming to the merits of the case, the revision in filed against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Siddipet in C.C. No. 163/88. The Respondents - accused were charged with offences punishable under sections 147 and 435 I.P.C. The complainant is the revision petitioner.
The case of the prosecution is that on 3-3-1988 at about 12.35 hours, on a complaint given by P.W. 1 (Ex. P. 1), the police filed charge-sheet under the above sections of law.
As many as five witnesses were examined. The complaint given by P.W. 1 was marked as Ex. P. 1. Exs. P. 2 and P. 3 and M.O. 1, the burnt scooter belonging to P.W. 1 were also marketed. The learned Magistrate was not inclined to accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and finding the accused not guilty of the charges, acquitted the accused of the same.
I do not find any reason to disturb the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate which was arrived at on an appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, finding no merits in this revision case, I dismiss the same.
Revision dismissed.