Channamaneni Karunakar Rao, v. The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., And Another,
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
BAIL SLIP : Trie Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the^ order of the High court dated ;;'6;2oo;'in cii r',t p uo 361 of 2008' in crl'R.c No.3032 of 2008 N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWENW NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER . .-._ TWO TUOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE !.
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL GRI MINAL REVtSroN CASE NO:256 oF 2008 evision Case under Sections 397&401 of Cr.P.C. against the Criminali R Judgment d 1S.2.2OOB made in Crl.APPeaI No.183/2006 on the file of the Court of the I Addi nal Sessions Judge, Karimanagar, Prefened against the Order passed in CC No. 561 of 2003 dated 22.11'2006 on the file of the Court of the Special Judici lMagistrate of First Class, Excise, Karimnagar Between:
Channama 3eiA (old), eni Karunakar Rao, S/o. Kishan Rao, Occ: Business, R/o' H No 9- -4-107(new ) Sreenagai ColonY, Karimnagar District i-,i u .,f .PETITIONER;' ri.
AND The S of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A P ' Hyderabad Thanne Anil Rao, S/o. Anjan Rao, Occ: Business, Rl/o 9-6-169' Ramna , Karimnagar.
...RESPONDENTS : SRl. VIVEK JAIN : SRI C. SHARAN REDDY Counsel for Petitioner Counsel for th Respondents : ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for Respondent No.1 the following:
The Court m
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E'V'VENUGOPAL AL REVISIO CASE N 5 of 2OO8 N o.2S CRIMIN oRDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C' aggrieved by the judgment in C'C'No'561 of 2OO3, dated 22'tl'2OO6 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise' Karimnagar as confirmed by the judgment in Crl'A'No' 183 of 2OO6' dated lg 'O2'2OO8 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge' Karitnnagar' \ \ , 2.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondentState. 3.
By frling a Memo uide USR'No "114268 of 2023' learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the notice sent to the petitioner was returned with an endorsement "Addressee lrft" and the consistent efforts made to contact the petitioner have gone in vain' Therefore' seeks to close the present criminal revision case as "Lack of Instructions" '
4.
Learned Assistalt Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State is present and takes no objection to the same. 5.
Taking on record the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this criminal revision case stands l closed, granting liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedies as available under law Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this crimina,l SECTION OFFICER'm revision case, shall also stand closed.
SD,- M.RAIIANAKRISHNA DEPUTY REGTSTRAR ,TTRUE COPY/'
-i,.;s c To, DL l*3;:',"15flu*mmm::--"
:ls g *;#
II ,I ffi t:
HIGH COURT DATEDi2gl12l2O23 ,, : r:1 ' .i _ -;.i.
.itfrffi
ORDER
'i xH ..tt CRLRC.No.256 of 2008 i hE S14 14:
( 6'( P o 3 27 I'IAR 2U24 ffi il * * CLOSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE 09q., go \ !
,r!ffi