Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 923 (AP)

POTUNURU NARAYANAMMA v. STATE OF A. P.

2009-12-17

B.CHANDRA KUMAR

body2009
Judgment ( 1 ) THIS Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Criminal procedure Code seeking to direct the learned judge First Class Magistrate gajapathinagaram, Vizianagaram District to accept the sureties for releasing the petitioner on bail irrespective of status mentioned in the cause title in Crl. M. P. No. 151 of 2009 on the file of the learned district and Sessions Judge-cum-Special court for SC and ST (POA) Act, Vizianagaram (herein after referred to as 'the Special Judge' for the sake of convenience ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is the accused no. 2 in P. R. C. No. 7 of 2009. The defacto complainant in her complaint described the petitioner as follows: "potnuri Narayanamma, son of Samba murthy, Hindu, aged 35 years, Teacher, resident of Gajapathinagaram. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed Crl. M. P. No. 151 of 2009 seeking bail. She has mentioned her particulars as follows: potnooru Narayanamma W/o Samba murthy, 36 years, Hindu, house wife r/o Gajapathi Nagaram. The learned Special judge granted bail to the petitioner and other accused on condition of the petitioners executing bonds for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial magistrate of I Class, Gajapathinagaram. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed a memo before the learned Special Judge stating that she has mentioned her occupation as House wife, whereas the complainant has wrongly shown her occupation as teacher. It is also stated that in view of this discrepancy, the learned judicial Magistrate of First Class, gajapathinagaram has not accepted sureties and not issued the release order. In the said memo, a direction was sought to the magistrate to release the petitioner irrespective of the status, age and occupation of the petitioner. The said memo was returned with endorsement to the effect that as to how the memo can be entertained to meet the such exigency since the order passed thereon in bail application was already communicated to all the concerned. Then the petitioner filed a petition under section 482cr. P. C. before the Special Judge seeking to modify the order passed in crl. M. P. No. 151 of 2009 and to correct the column of the occupation of the petitioner as teacher instead of house wife. Then the petitioner filed a petition under section 482cr. P. C. before the Special Judge seeking to modify the order passed in crl. M. P. No. 151 of 2009 and to correct the column of the occupation of the petitioner as teacher instead of house wife. The said order was dismissed with endorsement as follows: (1) Correct provision of law to be noted. (2) As seen from the petition and order dated 9-12-2009, the occupation of the petitioner A-2 is correct. Hence it is to be clarified as to why this petition is filed in this Court? ( 5 ) THIS present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Gajapathinagaram to accept the sureties for release of the petitioner on bail irrespective of status mentioned in the cause title in Crl. M. P. No. 151 of 2009 on the file of the Special Judge. ( 6 ) THE only point that falls for consideration is: whether such a direction is justified in the circumstances of the case? ( 7 ) NO doubt, in the complaint, occupation of the petitioner is shown as teacher and she has described as son of Samba Murthy. ( 8 ) THE very fact that the petitioner is shown as son of Samba Murthy shows that her description is incorrectly mentioned. Admittedly, she is a woman. Therefore, referring her as son of Samba Murthy is incorrect. ( 9 ) WHENEVER in a complaint or in the charge sheet if the particulars of the accused are not correctly mentioned by the Defacto complaint or by the police, it is the petitioner-accused who has to mention the correct particulars in the petition filed by him. Merely because the description is not tallying, the learned Magistrate appears to be not justified in rejecting to accept the sureties furnished by the petitioner. For example in this case the defacto complainant has shown the petitioner as son of Samba Murthy? whereas she is the wife of Samba Murthy. Whether petitioner also should mention her particulars as son of Samba Murthy. It would be absurd to say-that the cause title is not tallying merely because correct particulars are given in cause title. For example in this case the defacto complainant has shown the petitioner as son of Samba Murthy? whereas she is the wife of Samba Murthy. Whether petitioner also should mention her particulars as son of Samba Murthy. It would be absurd to say-that the cause title is not tallying merely because correct particulars are given in cause title. ( 10 ) ANOTHER example, if in a Charge sheet filed by the police the age of the accused is shown as 18 years, but if the said accused is a juvenile and claims that he is less than 16 years old, then the question is whether the magistrate is bound by the age given by the police? Certainly not. If the accused claims that he is a juvenile, a duty is cast upon the magistrate to enquire into the same and determine whether the said accused is a juvenile or not. Similarly, whenever the accused disputes the description given by the police or the complainant with regard to his age, occupation, father's name etc. , the magistrate may enquire into the same, but cannot deny issuing of release order. In the instant case, it has to be seen that there is no other accused by name Potnuri narayanamma. Therefore, there was no occasion for any confusion. The Judges should have pragmatic attitude and concern for justice. If a person is unnecessarily kept in prison even for one day, the same amounts to causing great injustice. ( 11 ) THE petitioners specific case is that she is the wife of Sambamurthy and she is a house wife and her specific case is that her status has been wrongly shown as teacher and she is wrongly described her as son of samba Murthy. It is also most unfortunate that the learned Special Judge initially returned the memo simply on the ground that the original bail order was already communicated to the concerned. Merely because the original order is communicated to all the concerned, it does not mean that the learned Special Judge lacks power to correct the mistake in the order or to clarify the position by giving necessary directions to the Magistrate. If there is a mistake in the order copies of which are dispatched nothing prevents the court from issuing corrected copies and sending corrected copy to all concerned. If there is a mistake in the order copies of which are dispatched nothing prevents the court from issuing corrected copies and sending corrected copy to all concerned. More so, when the petition is filed that the same is returned without assigning any proper reason, probably it may be practicable and useful if the accused mentions the correct particulars for status, age and address etc. , in the cause title and also mentions the incorrect address shown by the defacto complainant or police clearly mentioning that particulars given by the complainant or police as incorrect. ( 12 ) WHEN a person is granted bail, such person cannot be detained on mere technicality. This may amount to illegal detention and all the petitioners concerned who are responsible for which illegal detention may be answerable. ( 13 ) THE learned Magistrate ought to have taken a Memo from the petitioner and ought to have accepted the surety furnished by the petitioner by making note of the discrepancy and ought to have issued release order. ( 14 ) IN the above circumstances, the learned Magistrate is directed to accept the sureties furnished by the petitioner and to issue release order forthwith without any delay. ( 15 ) THE petition is ordered accordingly.