IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT : PRESENT : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE: GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 540 & 541 of 2005 Between: Kasa Nageshwar @ Nagesh, S/o. Gandaiah, R/o. 1-9, Hydershakhote, R.R.District. Appellant in both the petitions AND State of A.P, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Respondent in both the petitions Crl.A.No. 540 of 2005: Criminal Appeal under Sec. 374(2) R/w. Sec. 383 of Cr.P.C. preferred to the High Court against the Judgment of the Court of the IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad made in SC.No. 2/2003 dt. 11-08-2003 Crl.A.No. 541 of 2005: Criminal Appeal under Sec. 372(2) R/w. Sec. 383 of Cr.P.C. preferred to the High Court against the Judgment of the Court of the II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, R.R.district made in SC.No. 79/2000 dt. 01-05-2001. These Petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and Grounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. P.S.Manjula Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following ORDER: “ The appellant was tried as A1 in Sessions Case Nos. 79 of 2000 and 2 of 2003. In SC.No. 79 of 2000, he was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of seven (7) years. The said sentence was pronounced by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, on 01-05-2001. In the other Sessions Case, ie., SC.No. 2 of 2003, though he was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC, he was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five (5) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred only), in default to suffer SI for a period of three (3) months. Questioning the said judgments, the appellant filed these two Criminal Appeals. While admitting the appeals, this Court refused to grant bail. When these matters are taken up for final hearing, it is noticed by this Court that the appellant was arrested on 19-05-1999 and thereafter; he was remanded to judicial custody on 20-05-1999. It means, he is in jail right from 20-05-1999 and he has completed the sentence of more than 8 ½ years as of now. When the sentence imposed in SC.No. 2 of 2003 is five (5) years and in SC.No. 7 of 2000 is seven (7) years, it is not known as to why the appellant is still languishing in the jail. ..2.. Hence, the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District, is hereby directed to furnish the information as to why he is not released so far. The Public Prosecutor is hereby directed to address a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District and get detailed information as to why the appellant is still languishing in jail, though he completed the entire sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court in the above Sessions Cases. Post after ten (10) days.” ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1. The V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District. (By Spl. Messenger) 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (By Spl. Messenger) Copy to: 4. The IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 5. The II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, R.R.district. 6. One CC to Smt. P.S.Manjula Kumar, Advocate(OPUC) 7. One spare copy. SAH HIGH COURT TGKJ DATED: 04-11-2008 NOTE: POST AFTER TEN (10) DAYS ORDER CRL.A.NOS. 540 & 541 OF 2005 DIRECTION DRAFTED BY: SAH APPROVED BY: DRAFTED ON: 05-11-2008 HIGH COURT TGKJ DATED: 04-11-2008 NOTE: POST AFTER TEN (10) DAYS ORDER CRL.A.NOS. 540 & 541 OF 2005 DIRECTION