04 May 2009
Supreme Court
Download

P.V. NAGESWARA RAO Vs STATE OF A.P.

Case number: Crl.A. No.-000904-000904 / 2009
Diary number: 6839 / 2006
Advocates: V. N. RAGHUPATHY Vs D. BHARATHI REDDY


1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.904 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2647/2006)

P.V. NAGESWARA RAO ...APPELLANT.

VERSUS

STATE OF A.P. & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS.

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard.

The appellant preferred this appeal against an order passed by the High Court.  The  

appellant was formerly a judicial officer in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  The appellant dealt  

with a criminal case as Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District and the appellant  

convicted  an  accused  for  the  offence  punishable  under  Section  306  IPC.   The  accused  

thereafter preferred an appeal  before the High Court and the learned Single Judge, while  

disposing  of  the  appeal  preferred  by  the  accused,  made  certain  observations  against  the  

appellant herein.  It was held by the learned Single Judge that the appellant herein, while  

disposing of the criminal case, relied on an inquest report as substantive evidence thereby  

committed  a  mistake  and observed  that  the  appellant  did  not  know the  fundamentals  of  

criminal law and also directed that these remarks be communicated to the said officer.

-2-

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant  preferred this  appeal.   The appellant  

points out that he had not relied on the inquest report as a substantive evidence but relied on  

P.Ws.1 and 2, who happen to be the inquest witnesses when the inquest report was done by

2

the police officer.   It  appears that  the contention raised by the appellant is correct.   The  

learned Single Judge was not fully justified in passing the said remarks against the appellant  

in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment.  The adverse remarks expressed by the learned  

Single Judge against the appellant may be treated as expunged from the impugned judgment.

The appeal is allowed accordingly.

                 ...................CJI    (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

             .....................J    (P. SATHASIVAM)

             .....................J    (MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

NEW DELHI;    MAY 04, 2009.