GUNUPATI CHEIVA PILLA Vs. RAVIPROLU RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the learned counsel.

(2.) Sri B. Parameshwara Rao, the learned counsel representing the petitioner in Crl. R.C. (SR) 23929 of 2004 would contend that in the light of the facts and circumstances explained, the delay in preferring the criminal R.C. to be condoned. The learned counsel also would contend that on the same set of facts, acquittal had been recorded in C.C.506 of 1998 and on that ground alone, C.C.No.45 of 2002 cannot be quashed. The learned counsel also would maintain that inasmuch as the State had not preferred any appeal against the acquittal recorded in C.C.No.506 of 1998, the de-facto complainant thought it fit to file the criminal R.C. aforesaid and hence, the delay may have to be condoned and the criminal petition at any rate may not be allowed. The learned counsel also would comment that even otherwise, liberty may be given to the petitioners to move an appropriate praying for discharge and hence, no relief can be granted in the present criminal petition.

(3.) Sri Subba Reddy, the learned counsel representing the petitioners in Crl. Petition No.6155 of 2002 would contend that the delay in preferring the criminal R.C. is inordinate and apart from it, the acquittal recorded in C.C.No.506 of 1998 is being questioned only with a view to put the petitioners in the present criminal petition into trouble, inasmuch as the petitioners are praying for quashing of the complaint in C.C.No.45 of 2002, being on the same set of facts, on the ground of double jeopardy. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the other factual details.