Criminal Revision Case No. 13 of 2017. Case: B. Kavitha Vs The State of A.P. and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)

Case NumberCriminal Revision Case No. 13 of 2017
JudgesT. Sunil Chowdary, J.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 239, 397, 401; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 34, 408
Judgement DateJanuary 04, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)


T. Sunil Chowdary, J.

  1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/A.2 under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order, dated 2.11.2016 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 670 of 2016 in C.C. No. 49 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Alur.

  2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no money was entrusted to the petitioner and the same was not considered by the trial court. He further submitted that the order passed by the trial court is not legally sustainable. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the material available on record prima-facie sufficient to proceed further against the petitioner and the present revision lacks merits.

  3. The petitioner herein is A2 in C.C. No. 49 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alur. He filed the petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for discharge. After affording reasonable opportunity to both sides, the trial court arrived that there is prima-facie case to proceed further and dismissed the said petition. Hence, the revision.

  4. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner herein along with A.1, is facing trial in CC No. 49 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 408 read with 34 of IPC. As per the allegations made in the charge sheet, the cheques for an amount of Rs. 5,26,929/- were entrusted to A.1. It is further case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein along with A.1 withdrew the amount and misappropriated the same.

  5. In 'STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH V KRISHAN LAL PARDHAN' AIR 1987 SC 733, the apex Court held thus:

    For scrutiny within the limits of Section 239 Cr.P.C., all that is required at the stage of framing of charges is to see whether a prima facie case regarding the commission of certain offences is made out. The question whether the charges will eventually stand proved or not can be determined only after the evidence is recorded in this case, which cannot be decided on merits without giving the prosecution an opportunity to adduce evidence against the accused.

  6. In 'STATE OF J&K v. ROMESH CHANDER' (1997) 1 SCC 90, the apex Court held thus:

    It is now settled law that the charge-sheet constitutes prima facie evidence constituting the offence for proceeding further in the matter. Necessarily, therefore, the Court has to look into the relevant law and the allegations made in the charge-sheet and then consider whether any offence...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT