D BHASKARA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel on record.

(2.) Sri Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that in the light of the orders passed by this Court in Crl. R.C.No.1517 of 2002, SC No.141/8/2000 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for S.C. and ST. (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), Guntur, cannot be further proceeded with. The learned counsel also would contend that it is totally unjust on the part of the learned Judge in insisting to proceed against the petitioner under Section 506 IPC, though in fact, the petitioner was discharged. The learned counsel also would maintain that even otherwise, the ingredients of Section 506 IPC are not attracted and hence in the light of the prior orders, further proceedings in S.C.No. 141/S/2000 be quashed.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor would maintain that in the light of the fact that in the prior order it was clearly stated that the petitioner shall stand discharged, there is no question of further proceeding with the matter either under Section 506 IPC or any other provision whatsoever.