HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1057 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The sole accused in C.C.No.246 of 1999 was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda, by judgment dated 27.12.1999. It appears that during the course of inspection, the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, found that without examining the injured or the eye witnesses, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused in C.C.No.246 of 1999 in haste and un-judicious manner and in this regard the learned Judge addressed a letter dated 07.07.2000 to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, who in turn, addressed a letter with his remarks to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P., on 19.08.2000. Subsequently, as per the orders of the then Hon’ble Portfolio Judge dated 12.08.2001 on Office Note dated 08.06.2001, the matter is taken up by the High Court as a revision and numbered as Crl.R.C.No.1057 of 2001. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they were arrayed before trial court. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 27.04.1997 the deceased namely K.Ramulu (P.C.1181 of Thipparthy P.S.) was proceeding to Thipparthy Police Station on his newly scooter and when he reached the tank bund road of Indloor village at about 4.00 p.m. a Tempo bearing No.AIT 057 being driven by the accused, respondent herein, came in opposite direction with high speed and dashed against the scooter of the deceased. As a result of the impact, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. The S.I. of Police, Thipparthy P.S., registered Crime No.33 of 1997 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet. The plea of the accused is of total denial. 4. Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 5. As seen from the record, it is clear that only the complainant, the wife of the deceased and the father of the deceased were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 respectively and their evidence did not establish the case of the prosecution. The prosecution ought to have examined the alleged eye witnesses and the injured persons. It is true that the said witnesses were not examined. In normal circumstances, the matter would have been remanded to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. However, having regard to the fact that the alleged offence took place on 27.04.1997 i.e. about 13 years back and no notice has been served on the respondent- accused in the revision, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in remitting back the matter to the trial Court. In fact, before remitting back the matter to the trial Court, this Court shall hear the accused person. As stated supra, no notice has been served on the accused and there are laches on the part of the State in not serving notice on the accused. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 8th July, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1057 of 2001 (Dismissed) 8th July, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1057 of 2001 DATE:08.07.2010 Between: State, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Petitioner and Mudududla Anjaiah … Respondent