THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1968 of 2010 (Dated : 15-11-2010) Jyothula Venkanna S/o Jyothula Santhaiah R/o Arvapally Mandal, Nalgonda District …Petitioner A n d State of A.P., through Inspector, CBCID, Cyberabad rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1968 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 13.10.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.102 of 2010 in SC No.511 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. 2. Background facts, in a nut shell, leading to filing of this revision by the accused in S.C.No.511 of 2009 are as follows:- Lw-1 Nookala Narasaiah and Lw-2-Nookala Kamalamma are wife and husband. Lw-3-Smt.Deverakonda Vijayamma is their daughter. She has a son by name Vamshi Krishna aged 10 years. The accused-Jyothula Venkanna, who is the petitioner herein, is a school dropout and he was working as a machine operator at Shangi Industries, Hyderabad on a monthly salary of Rs.2,500/-. He left the job and addicted to several vices. He was facing financial crunches. He developed intimacy with Lw-3 D.Vijayamma, who is the mother of Vamshi Krishna. He came to know that Lw-1 Nookala Naarasaiah, who is maternal grandfather of Vamshi Krishna sold his agricultural lands and received Rs.16 lakhs. The accused developed evil will to demand amount from Lw-1 by kidnapping Vamshi Krishna. On 23.7.2006 at 11.30 hours, he kidnapped Vamshi Krishna and took him away on a cycle promising to give some fruits. He killed Vamshi Krishna apprehending that Vamshi Krishna may expose him in the village in case he sent him back to the village. He concealed the dead body of Vamshi Krishna under dry leaves and stones. Lw-1 Nookala Narasaiaah presented a report before the Station House Officer, Arvapalli P.S., Nalgonda District. Lw-38-Md. Maqsood Ahmed received report and registered a case in Crime No.54 of 2006 under `boy missing’. The accused allegedly confessed the commission of the offence before Lw-16 Jyothula Ramaiah, who informed the same to Lw-39-Md.Thirupathanna, C.I of Police, Suryapet on 26.7.2006. Lw-39 arrested the accused on 27.7.2006 and recovered the dead body of the deceased and also the weapon used in the commission of the offence. Subsequently, the case came to be transferred to CID for further investigation. After completing investigation, a charge sheet came to be presented before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet. 3. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C and committed the case to the Sessions Division, Nalgonda District. The learned Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, took the case on file as S.C.No.511 of 2009 and made over the same to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet for disposal according to law. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed charges under Sections 364-A, 304 and 201 IPC, read over and explained the charges to the accused for which he pleaded not guilty. 5. The prosecution after examining 28 witnesses moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to receive F.S.L report. It is stated in the petition that the said report has not been filed due to inadvertence. The accused filed counter resisting the application. It is stated in the counter that marking of F.S.L report after examination of all the material witnesses causes much prejudice to his defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on hearing the prosecution and the accused, allowed the application, by order dated 13.10.2010. Hence, this revision by the accused. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that marking of FSL report after completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution would cause much prejudice to the defence of the petitioner herein, and therefore, the trial Court is not justified in allowing the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 91 Cr.P.C. A further submission has been made that the Post Mortem Examination has been conducted by Dr. G.Madhavi and therefore, the witness proposed to be examined to prove the F.S.L report has not been cited as a witness in the charge sheet. 8. Per contra; learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while supporting the order impugned in the revision, contends that Post Mortem has been conducted by a team of doctors comprising Civil Surgeon/Medical Officer and Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Suryapet and merely because Civil Surgeon has not been cited as witness in the charge sheet, the prosecution is not barred from summoning Civil Surgeon/Medical Officer, who conducted post mortem examination as a witness to speak of the contents of the F.S.L report. 9. It is not in dispute that the material objects have been sent to A.P.F.S.L for report. Indeed, Assistant Director, APSFL, Hyderabad has been cited as Lw-36. Non filing of FSL report has been property explained by the prosecution. The trial Court considered the explanation offered by the prosecution and proceeded to allow the application, and thereby received the FSL report. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference in exercise of powers under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.15-11-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1968 of 2010 Trd. to CMSO (Dated : 15-11-2010)