Tuni arson case: Government to file appeal in Andhra HC against acquittal judgment
The order issued by the principal secretary (Home), Kumar Viswajeet, further instructed the public prosecutor to file the appeal petition along with delay condonation petition and duly specifying the reasons for delay to avoid further legal complications.
'Government, after careful examination of the matter and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act No.46 of 2023), hereby direct the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, to prefer an appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the acquittal judgment passed by the railway court,' read the GO.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
U.P. school mergers: Supreme Court asks AAP MP to move High Court against order to merge low-enrolment schools
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 18, 2025) suggested to Aam Aadmi Party parliamentarian Sanjay Singh to approach the Allahabad High Court with his petition challenging Uttar Pradesh's 'arbitrary and unconstitutional' action of pairing and merging 105 Government primary schools through an executive action taken in June 2025. A Bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta noted that the issue was related to thousands of students and was related to an Executive action. Ideally, an Executive move ought to be challenged in the High Court concerned. The court further noted that the right to education was a statutory right under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, while also being a Constitutional entitlement under Article 21A of the Constitution. The court remarked that in cases when a right was covered by a specific statute, aggrieved persons ought to move the High Court first under Article 226 of the Constitution before agitating the issue as a Constitutional one. Mr. Singh, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, advocates Farukh Khan and Sriram Parakkat, withdrew his petition. He was given liberty to approach the High Court, which was requested to hear the case, if filed, expeditiously. The Rajya Sabha MP had said the State's order had adversely affected the educational access of numerous children. The State had, through an order of June 16, paired low-enrolment schools with proximate ones. A list issued on June 24 had identified 105 low-enrolment schools. 'As a result, several functioning schools have been closed or merged, forcing children to travel longer distances without transport, infrastructure, or prior notice. This violates Article 21A, Section 6 RTE Act, and Rule 4(1)(a) of the UP RTE Rules, since children are deprived of neighbourhood schooling… Closure or merger of schools, once established under Section 6 read with Rule 4, cannot be done by mere Executive order without legislative sanction,' the petition had pointed out.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court stays HC order reversing discharge of T.N. Minister, family members in DA case
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 18, 2025) stayed a Madras High Court order of April 28 reversing the discharge of Rural Development Minister I. Periyasamy, his wife P. Suseela, and two sons P. Prabhu and P. Senthilkumar from a 2012 disproportionate assets case, and directed them to face trial. A Bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu on the petition filed by the Minister and his family members, represented by senior advocate V. Giri and advocate Ram Sankar, challenging the High Court's decision to set aside the order of discharge of the trial court in 2017. The Minister has argued that these cases were products of the political rivalry. He had referred to a similar disproportionate assets case registered against him and his family concerning tax returns for the period from 1996 to 2001. The trial court had discharged them in January 2017. The High Court and the Supreme Court had not interfered with the decision subsequently. The Minister said the present case was 'foisted' when rival political party, AIADMK, was in power in the State in 2012. The Minister and his family members were charge sheeted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for acquiring assets disproportionate with their income. 'His wife, and two sons are majors having independent incomes,' the petition submitted. 'The entire case of the prosecution is based on the income tax returns filed by the petitioner and his family members during the said period which were also scrutinised and accepted by the Income Tax department. It is pertinent to mention here that the prosecution, with a malafide intention, by duplication of calculation, had added the amount carry-forwarded in capital account as well as the assets acquired / balance shown in the bank account out of the capital account, thereby artificially and erroneously inflated the net income, contrary to the basic principles of accounting. It is not the case of the prosecution that any undisclosed property or money or goods found or recovered from the petitioner or his family,' it argued. The Court tagged the case with another petition filed by Mr. Periasamy. In that case, the apex court had on April 8, last year stayed the trial in a corruption case regarding the alleged allotment of a High Income Group plot in the Mogappair Eri scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The plot allotment had been made to C. Ganesan, who was the personal security officer to the then Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, in 2008-2009. Mr. Periyasamy was at the time the Minister for Housing in the then DMK government. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) had lodged the case against Mr. Periyasamy in February 2012 when DMK lost the elections to AIADMK. The DMK again formed the government in Tamil Nadu in 2021. Mr. Periyasamy became a Minister. Two years later, in March 2023, a Special Court trying corruption cases against lawmakers had discharged him in the case for want of proper sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, a Single Judge Bench of the Madras High Court of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh had taken suo motu cognisance of six cases of corruption. Mr. Periyasamy's case was the first one. The High Court had set aside the discharge order of the trial court and put the case back on trial. Mr. Periyasamy had challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to reopen the case when there was no sanction for prosecution given by the Governor under Section 197. The Minister had argued that trial cannot commence against him without prior sanction. Sanction for a valid prosecution of a sitting Cabinet Minister can only be given by the Governor, he had noted.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Madras High Court takes special steps to dispose petty criminal cases pending in Tamil Nadu, Puducherry
The Madras High Court has taken up two suo motu writ petitions to identify and dispose of criminal cases pending in all courts across Tamil Nadu and Puducherry for over three years in trial/appeal/revision stage in connection with offences that are punishable up to three years. Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava has directed the Madras High Court Registry to list the suo motu writ petitions before Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy in the principal seat of the High Court in Chennai and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan at its Madurai Bench for passing necessary judicial orders. The High Court has also decided to identify and dispose of cases booked for the charge of criminal intimidation too even if the offence was punishable for more than three years. The move comes pursuant to identical letters written by Justices Chakravarthy and Ramakrishnan to the Chief justice. Justice Chakravarthy, on Monday (August 18, 2025), requested the law officers, advocates, police as well as litigants to bring all such cases pending not only before the High Court but also before the district courts, which fall under the jurisdiction of the principal seat of the High Court in Chennai, to his notice beginning from Tuesday. He said, the High Court would first identify compoundable cases and attempt to resolve them through direct negotiations and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods. Even in non-compoundable cases, the court would suitably consider the possibility of compromise and settlement between the parties. The High Court would also suggest withdrawal of prosecution in approrpriate cases, if such course was deemed necessary and also quash cases on the ground of delay, wherever circumstances permit, in order to safeguard the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court would further attempt to dispose of cases arising out of private complaints, such as those under the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, pending before trial courts. Apart from using strategies such as compounding and ADR methods, a special approach would be taken up to dispose of batch cases. 'The goal is to identify categories and recommend or apply appropriate solutions and pass orders to reduce the clogs in the wheels of the administration of criminal justice thereby ensuring proper case flow and availability of quality time for the trial of appropriate cases,' Justice Chakravarthy added.
