Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 23 (AP)

T. Tirupathi Tao v. State of A. P.

2020-01-21

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT : U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order, dated 28.06.2019, in Crl. M.P. No. 1247 of 2017 in C.C. No. 125 of 2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram, dismissing the petition filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused seeking to discharge him from the offences under Sections 409 and 477-A of IPC in C.C. No. 125 of 2013 the instant Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 391 r/w. Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C. 2. Heard Sri G.V. Shivaji, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondents. 3. As can be seen, the trial Court dismissed the discharge application on the sole ground that the charges have been already levelled against the accused on 04.04.2015 and since then the matter has been coming up for trial. Therefore, at that stage the petitioner's request for discharge cannot be considered. This Court fully endorses the finding of the trial Court. When once the charges are framed, the question of discharge does not arise, concerned accused has to face the trial and vindicate his defence stand. In the instant case, the accused sought for discharge mainly on the ground that he challenged the surcharge proceedings under Section 52 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act in O.A. No. 05/2012 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and the said Tribunal allowed the appeal on 01.04.2013 and therefore basing on the same facts, no criminal prosecution is maintainable under law. However, as stated supra, the trial Court dismissed the discharge application on the ground that the charges were already framed. 4. In view of this factual scenario, this Court cannot find any technical defect of law in the order impugned and therefore the criminal proceedings against him cannot be set aside in this Criminal Revision. However, as stated supra, the trial Court dismissed the discharge application on the ground that the charges were already framed. 4. In view of this factual scenario, this Court cannot find any technical defect of law in the order impugned and therefore the criminal proceedings against him cannot be set aside in this Criminal Revision. However, he can pray this Court by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble apex Court in Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 13 SCC 324 , has held that once the plea of accused is recorded under Section 252 of Cr.P.C. the trial has to take its logical conclusion and the only remedy available to an aggrieved accused to challenge an order in an interlocutory stage is by invoking remedy under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Though, the said decision was rendered in the context of a summons case, the principle is applicable in respect of Sessions and Warrants cases also. In such a case, the only remedy for the accused is to seek for the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. With the above observation, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 6. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, shall stand closed.