THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1969 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.1969 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 13.10.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.106 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. 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 Vamishi 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, he case came to be transferred to CID for further investigation. After completing the 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 the posting order of the Investigating Officer, who has investigated the case. The respondent-accused filed counter resisting the application. It is stated in the counter that the prosecution came up with this application nearly after a lapse of four years and if the application is allowed, it causes much prejudice to him. 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 the prosecution has not given proper explanation for not filing the posting orders of the Investigating Officer, who has investigated the case, at the earlier point of time and allowing the prosecution to file posting orders of investigating officer at this distance of time 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. 8. Per contra; learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the order impugned in the revision. 9. The document sought to be filed is posting order of the Investigating Officer. The reason for non-filing of the posting order along with charge sheet and the necessity of filing the posting order have been stated by the prosecution in the application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. By placing on record the posting order of the Investigating Officer, the defence of the petitioner in no way be affected. The trial Court considered the explanation offered by the prosecution and proceeded to allow the application. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference in exercise of powers under Sections 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.1969 of 2010 Trd. To CMSO (Dated : 15-11-2010)