HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.104 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order in Crl.M.P.No.424 of 2008 in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2007 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, Kadapa. 2. The trial of the case was proceeding against the accused Chinna Mallugari Vijaya Madhava Reddy @ Vijaya Manmadha Reddy for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’). While the evidence was in progress, the complainant-victim stated that apart from the accused, there are several other persons, who have attacked him and he specifically mentioned the name of C.Prathap Reddy. Thereafter, the above application was filed under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code to add about four persons as accused. But, however, the lower Court allowed only addition of the one person as accused, who is Prathap Reddy, S/o. Dharma Reddy, aged about 32 years. 3. This revision case was filed in the name of C.Subba Reddy, S/o. Dharma Reddy, stating that the name of the petitioner was wrongly given during the course of trial and in fact, when the police tried to arrest the petitioner, he himself has surrendered before the lower Court as Subba Reddy in the above case and the Court has released him on bail. Therefore, the dispute about the identity is left open to be decided during the trial of the case as to whether the petitioner, who filed this revision petition, is the same person or if there is any other person by name Prathap Reddy, S/o. Dharma Reddy, who is the accused. 4. So far as the contention of the revision petitioner about the validity of the adding as additional accused is concerned, it is not in dispute that even in the complaint, the name of the person as Prathap Reddy, S/o. Dharma Reddy is said to have been given but the police have excluded. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it is not an invention for the first time to implicate the accused. The Investigating Officer found that accused Nos.2 to 5, who were originally shown in the complaint, have not committed any offence and accused No.2, evidently, as per the charge sheet refers to the newly added accused. 5. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower Court and the lower Court shall consider the identity of the petitioner with reference to the evidence on record and also consider the investigation done by the police and proceed on merits. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date: 01-11-2011 INL/MR