APHC010164232023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 278/2023 Between: 1.SRINIVASA BABU PATIBANDLA, S/O P.RAMANADHAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O 60-13-4, PLOT NO. E4, 2ND FLOOR, SBI COLONY, ROAD NO. 3, SIDDARTHA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT - 520 010, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI. 2.VEERABADRA RAO GUTHIKONDA BALAJI, S/O G.SAMBASIVA RAO AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O H.NO.40-5/3-13, SHYAM NAGAR, TIKKLE ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 520008 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.P RAJKUMAR 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Petitioner/Complainant filed the revision challenging the order of the learned Magistrate returning the remand report on 06.01.2023 by the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. Sri D.Anil Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate mistook the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.200/2023 dated 06.01.2023. If there are any typographical errors in the remand report, the learned Magistrate ought to have instructed the Investigating Officer then and there to carry out those mistakes and resubmit the remand report. The offences alleged to have been committed by the Accused are punishable for more than seven years. Therefore, there was no justification even for issuing notice under Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The order of return of remand is a revisable order as it is intermediate in nature, it is not hit by Section 397(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The learned Trial Court erroneously misinterpreted the order of the High Court. The learned Magistrate ought not to have returned the remand report, and it is urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case. 3. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is in progress, certain documents were sent to FSL and the FSL report is awaited, Section 41-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ notice was issued to the Petitioner and it is urged that there are no flagrant miscarriage of justice and there is no perversity in the order and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 3 4. On the other hand, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.Rajkumar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 argues that the Petitioner though he is a de-facto complainant or complainant, he is not the aggrieved person. The aggrieved person of the impugned order is the Investigating Officer, who has not preferred to file the Revision Case. The order of the learned Magistrate in returning the remand was sound order and it doesn’t require any kind of interference and urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Pandurangan v. S.S.R. Velusamy1 wherein at paragraph No.6 it is held as under: “6. So far as the first question as to the maintainability of the revision at the instance of the complainant is concerned, we think the said argument has only to be noted to be rejected. Under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court has suo moto power of revision, if that be so, the question of the same being invoked at the instance of an outsider would not make any difference because ultimately it is the power of revision which is already vested with the High Court statutorily that is being exercised by the High Court. Therefore, whether the same is done by itself or at the instance of a third party will not affect such power of the High Court. In this regard, we may note the following judgment of this Court in the case of Nadir Khan v. The State (Delhi Administration).” 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied on a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in State v. Ganti Venkata Satya Bhaskar Prasad2 wherein at paragraph Nos.25, 26 & 27 it is held as under: 1 MANU/SC/0736/2003 2 MANU/AP/0442/2023 4 “25. It is relevant to mention that a detailed report with support of statements of witnesses, other reports of investigation has been filed clearly mentioning the role of the accused in commission of the offences by way of participating in the crucial meetings, inflation of valuation, manipulation of MOA and creating the fake entities to which fund was transferred and his wife being in key position in the APSSDC etc. Moreover, Section 409 IPC is not limited to public servant alone, but other categories as well. At this juncture, since the investigation is still in progress, very detailed enquiry like the trial cannot be held nor can an enquiry on par at the stage of discharge be made. What is to be seen is whether the allegations supported by the evidence so far collected could constitute offence(s) alleged against the accused or not. In view of the legal position that Section 120B IPC creates an offence by itself, the same cannot be totally ignored by the learned Special Judge. 26. Now, there is no need to refer the role of the accused spelt out in the remand report point by point. But it is clear that the allegations would attract the offences for which his remand is sought is not covered by Section 41A Cr.P.C. That be the case, it is improper to direct to follow Section 41A Cr.P.C in the present case, as held by the Supreme Court in K.Subbaiah case (supra). Moreover, it is also to be examined in case where Section 41A Cr.P.C. applies, whether in a given case, the investigating officer could establish grounds requiring remand of an accused to judicial custody or not. 27. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.” 8. No doubt the High Court has got the power of suo motu exercising revisional jurisdiction, because it is inherent and vested in this High Court as per the provisions of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ A learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.200/2023 on 06.01.2023 passed the order as under: “The learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice for respondent No.1 and requests time to obtain instructions. Issue notice to respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to respondent No.2 by registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service by the next date of hearing. Post on 18.01.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the complete order of cognizance by the next date of hearing. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has already been arrested and is being produced before the Magistrate. The investigation may go on. However, steps shall be taken not to coerce any confession from the petitioner.” 9. Indeed, the learned Magistrate on 06.01.2023 had also referred about the purport and intent of the order passed by this Court on 06.01.2023 by clearly mentioning that steps should be taken not to coerce any confession 5 from the Petitioner/Accused. Undeniably, this Court on 06.01.2023 did not direct the Investigating Officer to arrest the Petitioner/Accused, for the reason that there was representation from the Public Prosecutor’s side that the Petitioner therein had already been arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate. 10. The learned Magistrate had opined that the reasons stated in the checklist and the remand report were not the same and therefore, the learned Magistrate returned the remand report. But a direction was given that the Accused to cooperate with the investigation. This Court, while exercising the power contemplated under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot direct the Investigating Officer to resubmit the remand report. Similarly, this Court while exercising the revisional powers cannot direct the learned Magistrate to direct the Investigating Officer to carry out any clerical or arithmetical errors in the remand report and produce the Accused before the learned Magistrate, since the investigation is in the exclusive domain of the Investigating Officer, and he is the master of the investigation. Any Court, let alone this Court, cannot direct the investigation to be done in a particular fashion and effect the arrest of the Accused, inasmuch as, the police officer, who is conducting the investigation, is bound by the procedure contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 11. The order of return of remand, albeit revisable, passed by the learned Magistrate perse cannot be interfered, as there is no perversity in it. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 6 12. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. However, it is made clear that any observations passed above are only made to dispose of the Criminal Revision Case and those observations would not affect the process of the investigation and also the rights of the complainant. The Investigating Officer is required to give a logical end to the complaint filed by the complainant before the learned Magistrate which was later forwarded to the Investigating Officer for the purpose of registration and investigation. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 15.10.2025 VTS