2026:APHC:305 APHC010044472008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3560]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1892/2008 Between:

1. SHIEK SHAJATHI, W/O.CHANDU SAHEB, D.NO.58-19-57/2/1, NAD KOTHA ROAD, BUTCHIRAJUPALEM.

...PETITIONER AND

1. S V S SRINIVAS 2 OTHERS, S/O.(L) SURYAM RADER MECHANIC NAVAL DOCKYARD, R/O.D.NO.58-19-35/2,SUSARLA COLONY, BUTCHIRAJUPALEM,GOPALAPATNAM, 2. S NANAJEE, S/O.(L) SURYAM EMPLOYEE IN COROMANDEL FERTILIZERS LTD. R/O.PRIYA GARDENS,NEAR BANGARAMMA TEMPLE SIMHACHALAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

3. THE STATE OF A P REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.HYDERABAD.

...RESPONDENTS Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the Judgment dated 23.09.03 in S.C.No.110/2002, on the file of VII Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, for re-trial.

IA NO: 1 OF 2003(CRLMP 8395 OF 2003 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant special leave to prefer an appeal against acquittal order dt.23-9-2003 in S.C.No.110/03 on the file of VII Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) Visakhapatnam.

IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLAMP 2236 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to convert the Crl.A.No.1246 of 2004 into Criminal Revision Case.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. T M K CHAITANYA Counsel for the Respondents:

1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1892 OF 2008

ORDER:

1. The instant criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the de facto complainant aggrieved by the judgment dt.23.09.2003 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, in S.C. No.110 of 2002, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the respondents 1 and 2 not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and acquitted them.

2. The petitioner herein is the de facto complainant and respondents 1 and 2 herein are A.1 and A.2 in S.C. No.110 of 2002 on the file of the VII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on the basis of the written complaint of PW1, the police filed charge sheet against respondents 1 and 2/ A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 354 of IPC. During the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses. Several documents were exhibited on behalf of both the prosecution and the accused. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court found respondents 1 and 2 not guilty and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the de facto complainant has filed the present criminal revision case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and illegally acquitted the accused. He further submits that the entire judgment of acquittal is based on surmises and conjectures and that the learned Trial Court proceeded only on the basis of his own presumptions rather than on the evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the prosecution case has been fully supported by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but the learned Trial Court has not believed the prosecution case, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Hence, the petitioner sought for setting aside the order of acquittal.

5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the pe