APHC010591012007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 770/2007 Between: 1. GANAPATHINEEDI KALYANI,, W/O G. VENKATESWARA RAO, C/O MUTHYALA CHINNARI, MIRTHIPADU, SEETHANAGARAM MANDAL, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD. 2. GANAPATHINEEDI VENKATESWARA RAO A1, S/O ACHUTA RAMAYYA, C/O KARUTHURI ANANTA RAMA MURTHY, NADUPALLY KOTA VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, 3. GANAPATHINEEDI RATNAM A2, W/O ACHUTA RAMAYYA, C/O KARUTURU ANANTA RAMA MURTHY, NADUPALLY KOTA VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 present the above revision questioning the Judgment in CC.No.664 of 2003, dt.04-04-2007 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. J.F.C.M., Tanuku, West Godavari District for the following among other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing. -2- Crl.R.C. No.770 of 2007 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. D KODANDARAMI REDDY 3. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: -3- Crl.R.C. No.770 of 2007 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 770 OF 2007 ORDER: 1. Inspite of the matter is being listed under the caption 8for dismissal9, none appears on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. The instant criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the defacto complainant against the judgment dated 04.04.2007, passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, in C.C.No.664 of 2003 whereby the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/A1 & A2 were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC. 3. I have perused the order passed by the learned trial court. 4. On careful observation of the findings, it appears that learned trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC, by fixing several points for determination. The order of acquittal has also mentioned the evidentiary value of the witnesses in detail and the documents placed by the parties has also been scanned. 5. On a careful perusal of the observation of the learned trial court, it appears that the trial court has specifically decided the grounds of petition as mentioned by the petitioner, he has also decided on -4- Crl.R.C. No.770 of 2007 the point for determination. I find no illegality and impropriety in the order itself. 6. Considering the same, I find no justification to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. 7. Under the above observation, the instant criminal revision case is dismissed as devoid of merit. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date:10.04.2026 Pmk -5- Crl.R.C. No.770 of 2007 235 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.770 of 2007 Date: 10.04.2026 Pmk