Namathoti Sankaramma vs State of A.P. And Ors. on 15 September 2000
Overview of the Case:
Citation 2000 (2) ALD Cri 588
Date of Judgment 29/05/2000
Court High Court of Andhra
Case Type Cri. P. No. 178 of 2000
Appellant Namathoti Sankaramma
Respondent State of A.P. And Ors.
Bench V. Rao
Referred Judgement Ram Chandra Prasad v. Ram Saran Sharma
Facts of the Case:
In the incident that took place on February 24, 1995, Namathoti Ratnam was found dead around 5:30 am that day. The deceased was the mock candidate of the National Congress for the post in the Zeera Parishad constituency, but was seen as the party’s full-time candidate after the nomination was rejected. The accused, representing the Telugu Desam Party, is said to have pressured the candidate to withdraw from the frame. The accused threatened the deceased that if he did not comply with the demands, there would be dire consequences. Or it is said that they asked him. Undaunted by demands and intimidation, the deceased determined to continue his election campaign and is said to have submitted Form ‘B’ to the relevant election authorities on behalf of the parliamentary party. Ganta Pullia, A7, reportedly went to the deceased on 23 March 1995 and stayed with him till 9:30 p.m. for trying to admit that he tried to convince him to resign. The aforesaid Ganta Pullia visited the house of the deceased the next morning at about 5:30 a.m. on 24th February 1995 and woke up the deceased’s son to inquire about his father. When they came out, they found a dead body in the neem tree next to the house. According to the report of the deceased’s wife, crime case no. After the investigation, the police filed complaints for violations under articles 448, 306 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. This complaint is filed in the name of the P R C. 1376, No. 7, Judge Briktagiri’s case
ISSUE:
Whether the Magistrate failed to examine the provisions of Section 210 of Cr.P.C?
ARGUMENT BY APPELLANT:
It would appear from the bare facts as gleaned from the committal order of the learned Magistrate that when enquiry in the complaint case filed by the petitioner herein which was registered as P.R.C.No. 5 of 1997 continued and police investigations related to these cases continued. Thus, Section (1) of Section 210 Cr.P.C provides that the Courts are to be informed that an investigation with the police is in progress in respect of the same offense or incident when the investigation or trial of a charge is pending. We assume that this is the issue of this case. If an investigation or trial is conducted in a prosecution case, the judge will stop the investigation. or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting investigation. However, the record in this case does not show, in fact, as to on what date the complaint was filed and on what date the FIR with the police was registered. It is obvious as seen from the committal order that the complaint case was registered as P.R.C. No. 5 of 1997 and the report of the police was obviously filed subsequently which was registered as P.R.C. No. 7 of 1997. But, however, it is not apparent from this record whether the pendency of investigation with the police in respect of the same incident was brought to the notice of the Court and enquiry proceedings in P.R.C. No. 5 of 1997 were stayed or not.
JUDGEMENT:
In this case, it is obvious that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of certain offences i.e., under Sections 489, 306 and 406 of IPC on the basis of the police report. It is also known that six of the seven defendants who have been charged are ordinary defendants who happened to be identified based on the police report. Therefore, it cannot be doubted that the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 210 Cr.P.C. It is applicable.
The Kerala High Court in Joseph v. Joseph, Cri LJ 595, 1982, took a similar view and held that the word “breach” is not used in Sub-section (1) of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. cannot be given a qualitative meaning, in the sense that it is used to denote an event, incident or occurrence and is used in Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. The word crime became known as “crime”. It should be understood in the limited sense of violating a specific law.
Section 3 of Section 210 of the Penal Code stipulates that (a) the police report is not related to “any” accused in the prosecution case; and (2) the judge is unaware of any crime in the case. It applies in two cases: No police report is filed. The word “voluntarily” refers to the respondent and the violation of Section 210(3) and for that matter Sub-section (2) of Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. It just means “one or more”, not “all”. The judgment of the Orissa High Court above is on the basis that Section 210(3) Cr.P.C applies where all the offenses and all the accused are not common to both the cases.
As seen above, in this case, according to the provisions of Article 210 of the Criminal Code, it is necessary to combine the investigation based on the police report and the prosecution case for the purpose of criminal proceedings. Both of them started talking down based on the police report.
The Sessions Judge should have scrutinized the committal order to ascertain whether the requirements of Section 210(2) Cr.P.C were satisfied. Has it been complied with? In examining this issue, he asks whether the learned judges have dealt with the materials in the indictment file as if the materials recorded in the file are police reports or not. This was not done. Therefore, I am satisfied that the substantial non-compliance with Section 210(2) Cr.P.C.
CONCLUSION:
The Criminal Petition is disposed of with the above directions.
REFERENCE:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/678335/
https://www.casemine.com/search/in/section%20210%282%29%20cr%28DOT%29p%28DOT%29c
This article is written by Naman Jain of Galgotias University, Intern Under Legal Vidhiya
