APHC010248472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 5433 & 5434/2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5433/2025 Between: Anam Purnima Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5434/2025 Between: Anam Purnima Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) 2 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Common Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. Both the petitions are filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada, in Crl.M.P.Nos.906 and 907 of 2025. The learned Magistrate allowed the petition filed by the prosecution for placing on record the C.C.T.V. footage in the form of a pen drive along with the Section 65-B certificate. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no opportunity for filing a counter was granted by the learned Magistrate and the petition was allowed. It is also submitted that the case is at the preliminary stage of investigation and PW1, in his statement, has testified before the Court, and it is observed by the learned Magistrate that PW1 submitted that C.C. cameras are fixed at the scene of the offence and that the C.C. camera footage would have to be marked. The petitioner also raised a ground in the course of arguments that the investigating officer did not collect any electronic evidence at the stage of investigation. 4. It is submitted that in the trial court, the existence of the C.C. Camera was elicited, and as such, the protection of the same by the prosecution cannot be found fault with. The opportunity for cross-examination would definitely be available for the petitioner after the marking of the said documents and after 3 taking on record the said exhibit along with the certificate. This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the well-considered order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada. 5. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 09.05.2025 PNS