APHC010157762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 3414 & 3406 / 2025 Between: PULLEPU VENKATA SURYANARAYANA MURTHY, S/O. GANAPATHI RAO, MALE, AGED 54 YEARS, R/O. D.No.7-7-7, BOYIDI VARI STREET, OLD TOWN, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATL. 2. GUTTULA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, S/O. VENKATA SWAMY, MALE, AGE 65 YEARS, R/O. NTR PARK OPP STREET, NEAR SHADI KHANA, TANUKU, TANUKU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The instant Criminal Petitions under Section 528 of BNSS have been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the common order dated 24.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.246 & 247 of 2025 in Crl.Appeal No.128 of 2023 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District, which were filed to reopen the evidence and for recall of P.Ws.1 and 2 for further cross examination. 2. Sri Mangena Sree Ramarao, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, there was no sufficient cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and to prove his case, it is necessary to further cross examination the said witnesses. 2 3. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 4. As seen from the impugned order, P.W.1 was cross examined at length by the learned counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant before the trial Court and the cross examination of P.W.2 was closed. Subsequently, by filing petition, P.Ws.1 and 2 were recalled by the trial Court, P.W.1 was further cross examined and P.W.2 was cross examined at length. Inspite of providing ample time, the Petitioner did not choose to file the petitions for recall of the said witnesses before the trial Court and after considering the material available on record, judgment was pronounced by the trial Court. Now, at the Appellate stage, these petitions are filed. 5. As rightly observed by the learned Appellate Judge, the Petitioner did not specify as to on which material facts he wants to cross examine P.Ws.1 and 2. There is no reference about the questions need to be posed to P.Ws.1 and 2 in further cross examination. The learned Appellate Judge has rightly opined that only to drag on the proceedings, the said petitions were filed. The common order passed by the learned Appellate Judge is well-reasoned and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. In the result, these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:04.08.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.Nos. 3414 & 3406 / 2025 Dt.04.08.2025 Dinesh