ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed, under Sections 397 and 401 R/w. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner herein, who was the de-facto complainant, challenging the order, dated 24.04.2007, passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.32 of 2007 on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’), SPSR Nellore District, with a prayer to set-aside the same.

2. The first respondent herein is the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are the revision petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No.32 of 2007 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. They were brought on record as Accused Nos.4 to 6 in C.C. No.271 of 2003, as per the orders in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.447 of 2006 in C.C. No.271 of 2003, filed by the prosecution before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur, SPSR Nellore District (for short, ‘the learned Magistrate’).

3. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

4. The facts leading to filing of this Criminal Revision Case by the petitioner/de-facto complainant can be summarized as follows:

Originally, basing on the report lodged by the present de-facto complainant, Crime No.13 of 2003 came to be registered by the Kovur Police Station for the offences under Sections 448 and 324 R/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). In the above FIR, as many as 6 persons were shown as accused i.e., original accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C. No.271 of 2003 and A-4 to A-6, who are brought on record under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate, as per the orders in Crl.M.P. No.447 of 2006 in C.C. No.271 of 2003, dated 30.03.2007. When the names of these persons were shown as accused in Crime No.13 of 2003, the Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet as against A-1 to A-3 i.e., Gollaprolu Yanadaiah, Gollaprolu Venkata Ramanaiah and Gollaprolu Rajesh alone deleting the names of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein on the ground that no case was made out against them and, on filing the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case against A-1 to A-3 alone and issued process. When the case in C.C. No.271 of 2003 was posted for trial, the de-facto complainant was examined as PW.1 before the trial Court, who deposed the names of A-1 to A-3. He also deposed about the names of Gollaprolu Ramesh, Gollaprolu Seethamma and Gollaprolu Kamakshamma that they trespassed into the house and committed the offence. So, when PW.1 was examined before the trial Court, he disclosed the names of respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein by adhering to the contents in the original report lodged by him. Then the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to issue summons to A-4 to A-6. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate, on hearing the prosecution as well as A-1 to A-3, who got filed their counter, but without ordering notice to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein i.e., A-4 to A-6 allowed the said Application and issued process against them.

5. Aggrieved by the same, A-4 to A-6, who were brought on record, filed the aforesaid Criminal Revision Petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge challenging the impugned order therein on various grounds.

6. The contentions canvassed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein in Criminal Revision Petition No.32 of 2007 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge are that no notice was ordered against them in the Petition filed by the prosecution in C.C. No.271 of 2003 and as such in their absence the order was decided, which is nothing but violation of the principles of natural justice. They also contended that the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was barred by limitation.

7. The learned A