APHC010282602024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 847 OF 2024 Revision filed under Sections 397 (1) & 401 of Cr.P.C. set-aside the “Order in CrI.M.P.Nos. 185 and 186/2023 in C.C.No.25/2010, dated: 13.02.2024 of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-Cum-lll Additional District & Session Judge, Vijayawada. Between: The State represented by Inspector of Police, Vijayawada Range Vijayawada. (Through Standing Counsel for ACB At High Court of AP at Amaravathi) ...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT AND Chinta Ramesh Babu, S/o. Late Siva Prasad Rao, 53 Hanning Officer, VGTM-UDA District. years. Junior Divisional Office, Mangalagiri, Guntur ...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED OFFICER-1 Neeli Kesava Rao, S/o Narashimha Rao, 44 years Asst.Architectual Draughtsman VGTM-UDA Divisional Officer, Mangalagiri, Guntur district. ...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED OFFICER-2 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 51 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition against the “Order in Crl.M.P.Nos.185 and 186/2023 in C.C. No. 25/2010, Dated. 13.02.2024, of the ill Additional District Judge-cum- Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition r under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to “stay all further proceedings in Crl.M.P.Nos.185 and 186/2023 in C.C.No.25/2010, dated; 13.02.2024 of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-Cum-llI Additional District & Session Judge, Vijayawada. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GHANTA SRIDHAR The Court made the following ORDER : Petition APHC010282602024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 847/2024 [3521] THE Between; ...PETITIONER The State AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Chinta Ramesh Babu and others Counsel for the Petitioner: S.Syam Sunder Rao SC cum Spl P.P. for ACB Counsel for the Respondent(S); Ghanta Sridhar The Court made the following: ORDER: counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for Heard the learned the respondents/accused officers. under Section 397(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C. All though there is an embargo 2. that against an interlocutory order a revision would not lie, the learned counsel submit that, instead of converting this criminal revision case for both parties into a petition filed under Section impugned order, the matter may 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ for quashing of the be disposed of. The impugned order was 2 Dr.YL^;> Crl.R.C.No.847of2{|24 Dated 16.07.2d25 passed by the learned Special Additional District Judge for SPE and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada prosecution under Section 311 1 and marking certain documents. and ACB Cases-Cum-lll dismissing the two and 242 of ‘the applications filed by the Cr.P.C.,’ for recalling of P.W. 3- The learned counsel for matter on merits, for the petition quash it would take file for the past 15 the respondents requested to dispose of the reason that if the case is converted into a criminal much time as the calendar case pending on the years. 4. Be that as it may, the application either for recall of the wi prosecution has got the liberty to file any witnesses or for marking of the documents Since the language under any state of the trial, before before the pronouncement of the judgment/order. Section 311 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,' is clear that at pronouncement of the judgment the power for recallirrg of any witness and further examination is permissible. If the P.W.1 is allowed for further chief- examination and further marking of certain documents no prejudice would be an opportunity of cross- caused to the respondents/accused officers because examining the P.W.1 and also evidence further relied testing the veracity of the documents on by P.W.1, would be oi and given. Thus, the respondents would not be prejudiced in any manner. 5. Therefore, this Criminal Revision order dated 13.02.2024 i ‘ Case is allowed, in Crl.M.P.Nos.185 and 186 of 2023 setting aside the on the file of the 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.847 of 2024 Dated 16.07.2025 learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-Cum-lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. \ 6. The learned Trial Court is directed to examine P.W.1 further and mark the documents, if any, relied on by P.W.1 and provide an adequate opportunity to the respondents for cross-examine the P.W.1 further on that subject and test the veracity of the documents, if any, relied on by P.W.1 in the judgment by completing the trial as early as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) months. 7. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 ' '' ■ i As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand SD/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTE^R closed. //TRUE COPY// SEerfON OFFICER To, 1. The Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-Cum-lll Additional District & Session Judge, Vijayawada. 2. One CC to SRI. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. GHANTA SRIDHAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies Chp TAC HIGH COURT DATED:16/07/2025 ORDER CRLRC NO. 847 OF 2024 X j3JUL?tr>5 <5. , Current section ^ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE