TULLA GANGADHAR Vs. A SAILOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the learned counsel representing the petitioner, Sri K. Durga Prasad, the learned counsel representing the first respondent and Sri Dhanunjay, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) Sri C.M.R. Velu, the learned counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate at District Court, Nizamabad since 1984 and the police foisted a false case against the petitioner since he had lodged a complaint against the police to the National Human Rights Commission for their illegal acts on 12-11-2001. The learned counsel also would maintain that the Head of the Institution-Government Girls High School, Smt. Shamsunnisa Begum-LW-5 had stated that on 6-6-2002 there was no incident at all as stated in the complaint. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would maintain that even if the allegations were to be taken into consideration, the ingredients of Section 341 of I.P.C. are not attracted at all.

(3.) Per contra, Sri A. Durga Prasad, the learned counsel representing the first respondent had taken this Court through the material available on record and would contend that the first respondent holding responsible office will not make such a false complaint and the conduct of the petitioner is definitely un-pardonable.