S M KUMAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri C. Ramchandra Raju, learned Counsel representing the appellant-accused and Sri Niranjan Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

(2.) Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned Counsel representing the appellant-accused would contend that there is an illegality that would touch the very jurisdiction of the Special Court inasmuch as it is clear from the record that the charge-sheet was filed straightway on 11-4-1997, and cognizance was taken by the learned Special Judge on 22-5-1997 and there is no committal and hence the whole trial is vitiated.

(3.) The learned Counsel elaborately explained the scope and ambit of Sections 193 and 209 of Criminal Procedure Code and also the object of committal proceedings and the illegality, which would vitiate the very trial itself. In the alternative, the learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence available on record and would submit that the evidence is so artificial and the same cannot be believed and on merits also the appellant-accused is entitled for acquittal.