Criminal Petition No. 8905 of 2022 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 21 Nov 2022
- Bench
- R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 447
- Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Act, 1982 ss. 4, 5, 6
Judgment
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.93 of 2016 on the file of Nakkapally Police Station, Visakhapatnam District for offence under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Act, 1982.
The allegation against the petitioner was that the company in which he is working as a director had encroached upon Government land by constructing a wall beyond the land area allotted to the said company by the Government.
It is now contended that the government has allotted, to the same company, the land that is said to have been encroached by it. In that view of the matter, investigation may go on. However, the same shall be expedited and completed within a period of two (02) months from the date of this order after taking into account the subsequent alienation of land by the company. 2
Operative part
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. ____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
21.11.2022 RKS 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8905 of 2022
21.11.2022 RKS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 447; Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Act, 1982 — ss. 4, 5, 6.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 21 Nov 2022. The bench was R RAGHUNANDAN RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.