YERUKALI SATHUPATI SEKHAR Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners/A-45 and A-46 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent.

(2.) On 04-03-2010 when the matter came up for admission this court had adjourned the matter giving an opportunity to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to get instructions. Thus, the matter is coming up for admission today.

(3.) Sri Padmanabha Reddy, the learned senior counsel representing the petitioners would maintain that the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni totally erred in dismissing the application holding that the Court need not look into the evidence and the admissibility or inadmissibility thereof at the time of framing of the charges. The learned counsel also would maintain that when the confession statement is clearly inadmissible, to permit the prosecution, to further proceed with the trial so far as it relates the petitioners/A-45 and A-46 would be just a futile exercise. Hence, the learned senior counsel would submit that inasmuch as practically there is no acceptable evidence or admissible evidence at all, as against the petitioners/A-45 and A-46, the petitioners are entitled for a discharge.