Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N Ramana Rao vs The Senior Divisional Security ... on 5 July, 2024
APHC010203512024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3487]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 500/2024
Between:
N Ramana Rao ...APPELLANT
AND
The Senior Divisional Security Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. J SUDHEER
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
2. P VIJAYA KUMARI(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice G. Narendar)
We have heard Ms. Nagamani Bandla, learned counsel representing the
learned counsel for the appellant, through online and Smt. P. Vijaya Kumari,
learned Central Government Counsel, for the respondents.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would seek time on the
premise that the counsel is engaged in some other Court. The same excuse
was sought out earlier today and the matter was passed over. When the
matter is called again in the afternoon, yet again adjournment is being
sought.
3. We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge. The Learned
Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the acquittal by the Criminal
Court is not honorable acquittal. In fact, we have perused the Judgment of
the Criminal Court. The acquittal is on a very specuous ground of there being
no independent witnesses. The allegations against the appellant in a nutshell
is that he was procuring an unlicensed hand gun i.e., 9 mm pistol from A2 &
A3 and when he was in possession of the hand gun, the State Police arrested
him that the Police recovered the unlicensed country made 9 mm pistol from
the possession of the appellant and empty magazine from A2 and ten rounds
of live ammunition from A3. The fact remains that the seizure of the illegally
manufactured weapons has not been rejected by the Criminal Court. In fact,
the Criminal Court has curiously sought to wish away this fact and proceeded
to acquit the accused on the ground of there being no independent witnesses,
when there was no case of any malicious prosecution or malafides levelled
against the I.O or respondent-Police.
4. That apart, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
appellant is also involved in other Criminal Cases and in that view the
question of there being any direction to the authorities to reinstate the
appellant would be teeth of the law lay down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the acquittal not being an
honorable acquittal and being on the basis of benefit of doubt, we do not find
any error in the reasoning and conclusions drawn by the learned Single
Judge. A bare perusal of the Judgment does not also disclose any reason set
out by the Criminal Court for disbelieving the version of the investigating
Police.
5. Hence, we see no ground which warrants interference with the well
reasoned Order of the learned Single Judge.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal being devoid of merits, stands rejected.
No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ
Appeal shall stand closed.
______________
G. NARENDAR, J
_____________________
KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J
Date: 05.07.2024
GVK
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
and
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Date: 05.07.2024
GVK
