1 APHC010338982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 7165 & 7166/2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7165/2025: Between: 1. ADABALA SURYA VENKATA RAMA KRISHNA,, S/O MALLESWARARAO, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O GANDHIPURAM, MERAKAPALEM PANCHAYAT, RAZOLE MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, A P HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMARAVATI 2. VENDAMURI PRABHAVATHI, S/O LATE RATNAJI RAO, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-172, 0PP. APSP III GATE BEHIND DURGA TEMPLE, RAMANAYYAPETA, KAKINADA. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7166/2025 Between: 1. ADABALA SURYA VENKATA RAMA KRISHNA, S/O MALLESWARARAO, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O GANDHIPURAM, MERAKAPALEM PANCHAYAT, RAZOLE MANDAL,. DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, A P HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMARAVATI 2. VENDAMURI PRABHAVATHI, S/O LATE RATNAJI RAO, AGED 62 YEARS R/O D.NO.2-172, 0PP. APSP III GATE BEHIND DURGA TEMPLE, RAMANAYYAPETA, KAKINADA ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 7165 & 7166 /2025 COMMON ORDER: The instant petitions under Section 528 of BNSS., have been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to set aside the Crl.M.P.Nos. 1729 and 1728 of 2025 in C.C.No.2216 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada and consequently allow the petitions filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. 2. Since the subject matter in these Criminal Petitions is one and the same, at the request of the learned counsel representing both parties, these matters are heard together and passed the following common order. 3. Heard Sri P. Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “N.I.Act”). When the matter is coming up for adducing evidence, the petitioner filed two petitions vide Crl.M.P.Nos. 1728 & 1729 of 2025 in C.C.No.2216 of 2021 to summon the Tahasildar, Razole and the Tahsildar, Kakinada Rural respectively to prove that during the time of alleged cheque, because of lockdown, there is no possibility for the people to move freely. The 4 alleged transaction took place on 02.10.2020 and 11.10.2021 and during that time lockdown was in force. To summon the Tahsildars with relevant records, he has filed such petitions. The petitions were dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. Learned counsel would further submit that to give a fair opportunity, the petitions may be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders because it is a case of private complaint. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, the impugned order is so clear about the lockdown that during the relevant days, it is on public notice. Learned Judge has discussed the issue at length and passed a reasoned order, observing that the accused has not presented any prima facie material to show that the execution of the promissory note or the issuance of the cheque was entirely dependent on a physical meeting, or that the lockdown restrictions were such that no meeting or transaction could have possibly taken place. It is further observed that even assuming the existence of lockdown restrictions on the said dates, they did not uniformly prohibit all movement or interactions—particularly private financial transactions between individuals. The learned Judge also noted that there is no specific averment indicating that movement was completely restricted in the relevant area on those dates, nor was any government order cited to show that permission or exemption was required for such interactions. 5 In that view, there are no warranting circumstances to set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Judge. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 14.07.2025 UPS 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 7165 & 7166/2025 Dated.14.07.2025 UPS 95