SURYANARAYANA RAJU Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revision petitions are against the show-cause notices issued under Sec. 344 Cr.P.C. The petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 397/84 is P.W. 11 and the petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 399/84 is P.W. 9. In S.C.No. 5 of 84, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, P.Ws. 9 and 11 were panchas in the panchanama prepared by the investigating officer i.e. P.W. 13. In the course of judgment, the learned Sessions Judge, with reference to the preparation of panchanama of M.Os. 3 and 4, did not place reliance on the evidence of P.W. 13, the investigating officer. The relevant portion in the judgment is to the following effect :

(2.) The sbow cause notices have been issued, to the petitioners u/s 344 Cr.P.C. as a sequel to the conclusion referred to above in the judgment. Section 344(1) which is relevant, is as follows:

(3.) It is obvious, from the events herein before, stated that there is no deliberate falsehood on the part of P.Ws. 9 and 11 and further, it is not expedient to prosecute them under Sec. 344 of the Cr.P.C, in the circumstaces. Therefore, the orders of the court below are set aside.