THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.50 of 2009 (DATED:17-09-2009) Between: Akella Venkata Subbaraya Bhavani Prasad S/o Someswar Rao, Ramalayam Street, Gandhi Nagar, Anakapalli Visakhapatnam District. ….Petitioner A n d State of A.P rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.50 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the docket order dated 24.10.2008 of the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry in taking the charge sheet on file in Crime No.53 of 2008 of Bommuru P.S., for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC and Sections 181, 134(A) and (B) read with 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The petitioner herein is Lw-21 in the charge sheet filed in respect of Crime No.53 of 2008 of Bommuru P.S. A case in Crime No.53 of 2008 came to be registered against the petitioner on the complaint of Daggumilli Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh in respect of the incident, wherein three students died and 15 others traveling in the bus driven by the accused received injuries. During the course of investigation, it appears that the prosecution filed memo altering the Section of Law from 304-A IPC to 304 IPC, and after due investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused. The charge sheet has been taken on file by the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC and Sections 181, 134(A) and (B) read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The grievance of the petitioner herein, who is father of one of the deceased in the accident, is that the learned Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence under Section 304 IPC also. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 27.01.2009. The 2nd respondent-accused entered appearance through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-accused. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the incident occurred due to the culpable negligence of the 2nd respondent, and therefore, the 2nd respondent-accused is liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 304 IPC. 7. The charge sheet filed by the police indicates that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Therefore, the Investigating Officer challaned the accused for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338, 337 IPC and Sections 181, 134(A) and (B) read with 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Magistrate, after perusing the charge sheet and connected records, took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 IPC and Sections 181 134(A) and 134(B) read with 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, by order dated 24.10.2008. I do not see any flaw in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the final report, he is at liberty to file a private complaint or protest petition. Without taking such recourse, this revision filed by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the stage of admission. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 17th September 2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.50 of 2009 DATED : 17-09-2009