LAWS(APH)-2009-8-16

THOTA LAXMINARAYAN Vs. THOTA VENKATA RAMANA

Decided On August 26, 2009
THOTA LAXMINARAYAN Appellant
V/S
THOTA VENKATA RAMANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao and sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel forthe petitioners respectively in Crl. P. Nos. 2773 of 2009 and 2937 of 2009, Sri A. Satyanarayana, learned counsel forthe first respondent in both the petitions, and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public prosecutor in both the petitions.

(2.) BEREFT of other details, the impugned order in Crl. M. P. No. 1378 of 2009 in D. V. C. No. 5 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Junior civil Judge, Ponnur, dated 13-4-2009, is a sequel to the order passed by the I Additional district and Sessions Judge, Guntur, in crl. M. P. No. 101 of 2009 in D. V. A. No. 78 of 2009 dated 9-4-2009. The learned Sessions judge was considering an application from the first respondent herein for a direction to the concerned Magistrate to implement the order in D. V. C. No. 5 of 2007 and the learned sessions Judge, coming to a conclusion that an offence under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (for short 'the Act') appears to have been committed by the respondents before him as seen from the statements of the parties recorded, still withheld passing an orderunder section 31 of the Act and due to the pendency of execution proceedings before the trial Court, directed the concerned Magistrate to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The learned Sessions Judge further directed to take up the matter from day to day, not to grant any adjournment and both the parties to appear before the trial Court on 13-4-2009.

(3.) IN obedience to the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, the impugned order was passed firstly dismissing the applications filed under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal procedure by the petitioners herein for condoning their absence or dispensing with their presence and the trial Court straight away felt that there was no otheroption except passing sentence against the petitioners herein under Section 31 of the Act and passed sentence accordingly imposing a sentence of imprisonment for 9 months each and a fine of rs. 10,000/- each againstall the respondents with a default sentence of one month each in case of non-payment of fine.