APHC010144252026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2199/2026 Between:

MOHANA CHOWDARY, S/O RADHA KRISHNA CHOWDARYAGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,R/O BURJA VILLAGE AND MANDAL,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. V IGNARAJU CHOWDARY, S/O RADHACHARAN CHOWDARY,R/O BURJA VILLAGE AND MANDAL,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

2. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,BURJA POLICE STATION, SRIKAKULAM,ANDHRA PRADESH.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

G V S KISHORE KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

2. There is no need to hear respondent No.1/Accused, inasmuch as the petition is filed only for recall of certain witnesses.

3. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/ Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) challenging the order dated 15.12.2025 in Cr.R.P.No.52 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, whereunder the revision filed by the prosecution was dismissed, despite observing that the petition filed under Section 311 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ ought to have been allowed, as the prosecution should have been given an opportunity to prove its case. However, the learned Revisional Court expressed its inability to interfere in view of the bar under Section 397(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ as the order is interlocutory in nature.

4. Before the learned Trial Court, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to summon Dr.Rajani Reddy, Radiologist, and K. Ravi Kishore, Sub-Inspector of Police (L.W.12), to examine them as witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the case is one of the oldest cases and that new evidence cannot be brought at a belated stage.

5. No doubt, the matter is one of the oldest cases pending on the file of the learned Trial Court. Nevertheless, the learned Trial Court ought to have provided sufficient opportunity to the prosecution to prove its case by examining the Radiologist, who issued a certificate stating that the victim/prosecution witness sustained grievous injuries at the hands of the accused. If the prosecution intends to prove that the victim suffered grievous injuries, the only option available is to examine the Radiologist who issued the opinion and to summon and mark the X-ray and scanning reports, if any.

6. Indeed, the learned Revisional Court has no power under Section 397(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to interfere with an interlocutory order. The learned Trial Court ought to have provided an opportunity to the prosecution to examine its witnesses.

7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Revisional Court and the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.2726 of 2025 in C.C. No.106 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amadalavalasa, are set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to summon the Radiologist and other prosecution witnesses for the purpose of proving its case by examining them and marking the Radiologist’s opinion, X-ray, and scanning reports, in the interest of justice.

8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_________________________

DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.03.2026 Note: Issue C.C.by 21.03.2026 B/o

RSI

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2199 of 2026 Date: 18.03.2026 Note: Issue C.C.by 21.03.2026 B/o

RSI