S.A. Venkatesu and ors. Vs. Venkatamma and anr. - Court Judgment
|Court||Andhra Pradesh High Court|
|Judge||Gangadhara Rao, J.|
|Appellant||S.A. Venkatesu and ors.|
|Respondent||Venkatamma and anr.|
- maximssections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] ghee as a live stock product held, [per v.v.s. rao & n.v. ramana, jj - majority] since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. the first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. the shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. by simmering unsalted butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. so to say, milk is converted to dahi, then butter......ordergangadhara rao, j.1. this revision is filed against the order of the additional sessions judge, chittoor in cri. m. p. no. 262 of 1974 in cri. r. p. no. 10/73.2. the criminal revision petition 10 of 1973 was posted for hearing on 27-11-1974. on that date the advocate for the petitioner was not present. no representation was also made. so the revision petition was dismissed for default. thereafter the criminal miscellaneous petition was filed to set aside the dismissal order and it was set aside by the learned judge and he disposed of the matter on merits.3. sri padmanabha reddy the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the criminal court has no power to dismiss a revision for default of appearance of the petitioner or his advocate or to set aside that order. i agree with.....
Gangadhara Rao, J.
1. This Revision is filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor in Cri. M. P. No. 262 of 1974 in Cri. R. P. No. 10/73.
2. The Criminal Revision Petition 10 of 1973 was posted for hearing on 27-11-1974. On that date the advocate for the petitioner was not present. No representation was also made. So the revision petition was dismissed for default. Thereafter the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was filed to set aside the dismissal order and it was set aside by the learned Judge and he disposed of the matter on merits.
3. Sri Padmanabha Reddy the learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the Criminal Court has no power to dismiss a revision for default of appearance of the petitioner or his advocate or to set aside that order. I agree with him. There is no provision to that effect in the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judge has relied upon the two decisions reported in Subhlal v. State : AIR1971Pat151 and Public Prosecutor of A. P. v. K. Prakasa Reddy, 1973 Mad LJ (Crl) 245. But they do not deal with a ease where a revision was dismissed for default of appearance of the petitioner, la these circumstances I have no option but to set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor and direct him to dispose of the Revision i. e., Crl. R. P. No. 10 of 1973 on merits. This Revision is allowed.
CRL. R. C. No. 831 of 1974
4. In view of the order passed by me in Crl. R. C. No. 832 of 1974. I set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor in Crl. R.P. No. 10 of 1973 and direct him to re-hear that revision petition. Hence this revision case is allowed.