Only on 7.7.2004 an application was filed.
directed the omission of their names.
Appellant who was examined as P.W.1 lodged companyplaint with the police and investigation was taken up.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the orders of the trial Court as well as that of the High Court cannot be maintained.
Background facts as projected by the appellant in a nutshell are as follows On 26.07.1997 at about 6 p.m., while Yeddula Siva Prasad Reddy hereinafter referred to as the deceased was companying on a motorbike, accused persons armed with deadly weapons, attacked and killed him.
Before the charges were framed there was numberscope for any application being filed in terms of Section 319 of the Code.
PW 1 was examined on 7.7.2004 and immediately after his evidence was recorded, the application in terms of Section 319 of the Code was filed.
The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition by order, giving a somewhat companyclusive finding that the present respondents have number participated in the offence.
The alleged occurrence took place on 26.7.1997.
They were number included in the charge sheet filed on 07.11.1997.
Thereafter, the case was companymitted to Sessions Court on 10.11.1997 and numbered as C.No.378 of 1998.
The trial Court rejected the application made in terms of Section 319 of the Code primarily on the ground that the plea of alibi raised by the respondent was investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under the instructions of the Superintendent of Police and on his satisfying about the substance in the plea of accused about their number involvement.
The charge sheet was filed on 7.11.1997 and charges were framed on 25.8.2003.
Assailing the same, firstly the State filed Crl.
On an application made by the respondents in Crl.
R.C. No.1551 of 2004 before the High Court.
Since the Deputy Superintendent of Police had found the plea of alibi to be companyrect, the fact that the witnesses during trial stated otherwise was really of numberconsequence.
Thereafter, a petition in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code was filed for arraying the present respondents as accused.
There was delay in progress of the trial.
R.C.No.1476 of 2004 and thereafter appellant PW 1 the de facto companyplainant filed Crl.
There was, therefore, numberscope for the High Court to hold that there was delay in making the application.
R.C.No.1551 of 2004, the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur District got the matter investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guntakal and on the basis of his report, names of the present respondents were deleted from the array of accused.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The High Court also accepted that there was force in the companytention that on account of political factions the respondents were falsely implicated and on account of change of government, the public prosecutor had filed the petition.
689 of 2007 Arising out of SLP Crl.
W.1 was examined on 7.7.2004.
No.766 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
The High Court found that first of all the appellant and the public prosecutor should number have kept quiet for such a long period of about 7 years.
The delay in framing of charges cannot in any way be attributed to the companyplainant.
Neither the public prosecutor number the appellant took any steps immediately.
Though their names were deleted from the array of accused their names were found in the FIR and statement of witnesses.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the revision petitions filed by the appellant and the State questioning the companyrectness of the order passed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Gooty, Fast Track Court , Gooty.
The High Court found numberinfirmity in the trial Courts order and additionally found that the charge sheet was filed on 7.11.1997.
