IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.867 of 2024 DATE:25.03.2026 BETWEEN:

Shetty Amarender & two others …..Revision Petitioners/Accused And The State of Telangana, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad & another …..Respondents : ORDER :

This Criminal Revision case is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.07.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.1 of 2024 by the Principal Sessions Judge at Narayanpet.

2. Heard Sri B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri K.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that the first appellate Court erred in setting aside the acquittal order passed by the trial Court in C.C. No.963 of 2022 and remanding the matter for fresh trial on the ground that no opportunity was given to the witnesses. It is submitted that the appellate Court failed to give due weight to the material available on record. The trial Court, after granting sufficient opportunities for several years, rightly closed the prosecution evidence. The case was pending for trial since 20.09.2016 and despite granting time for nearly five years, the prosecuting agency failed to produce any witnesses, as a result of which the prosecution evidence was closed on 29.01.2021. Even thereafter, the learned Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to reopen the case and recall the witnesses, which was allowed on the same day, but still no witnesses were produced on the subsequent hearing dates. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was finally closed on

20.03.2023 and the matter was posted for arguments on 07.06.2023. On that day also, the learned Public Prosecutor remained absent and did not take any steps for recalling the witnesses. Consequently, the case was posted for pronouncement of judgment on 19.06.2023 and during that period also the prosecution did not take any steps to reopen the case. It is further contended that the defacto complainant was well aware of the hearing dates as he was regularly attending the Court in a connected case in C.C.No.217 of 2022, and therefore the contention that the witnesses were not informed of the hearing dates is not correct. As the matter pertains to the year 2015 and the trial Court, after granting sufficient opportunities, delivered its judgment in 2023, there is no error in the judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, the first appellate Court erred in remanding the matter and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the docket order dated 19.04.2016 in C.C. No.61 of 2015 shows that A.1 to A.3 were present before the Court. It is further submitted that the docket order dated 16.03.2021 reveals that LWs.1 to 5 were present and were identified by the police of Kosgi Police Station. On that day, the learned Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking reopening of the case and recalling of the witnesses by issuing summons, which was allowed and LWs.1 to 5 were bound over till 17.03.2021 for recording their evidence. On 17.03.2021 also A.1 to A.3 and LWs.1 to 5 were present, but since a criminal case filed by the accused against the witnesses in C.C. No.597 of 2016 was pending and there was a possibility of amicable settlement, time was sought for settlement. Accordingly, at the request of the defence counsel, the Court bound over LWs.1 to 5 till 10.04.2021 on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to each witness. Subsequently, when the case was coming up before the JFCM Court, Kodangal, it was transferred to the Court of I Additional JFCM, Kodangal, which issued summons to the witnesses with a conditional order that if the prosecution failed to produce them, the prosecution evidence would be