APHC010393572010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1294/2010 Between: Golla Chenchu Krishnaiah, ...PETITIONER AND Golla Sathyanarayana Sathyam Another ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: D SANGEETHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G VIJAYA SARADHI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 2. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed by one of the witnesses/P.W.2 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore, in 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1294 of 2010 Dated 17.06.2025 S.C.No.68 of 2007 challenging the judgment of acquittal for the offence under Section 302 of ‘the IPC’. 3. Mr. Mohammad Ismile, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Vijaya Saradhi, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submit that the State had preferred an appeal against the acquittal judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore, in S.C. No.68 of 2007, vide Crl.A (SR) No.24926 of 2012. The said Criminal Appeal was dismissed on 26.09.2014 by the Division Bench of this Court. 4. In this regard, it is opposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Ramachandran v. V.N. Rajan1, wherein at para Nos. 15 to 24 and 32 it is held as follows: “15. We cannot find fault with the learned Single Judge in proceeding ahead with the revision as it was never brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the appeal against the same judgment which was impugned in the revision had already been filed. It was for the appellant-accused to point out that on the date when the revision was heard the fate of the criminal appeal filed impugning the same judgment was sealed because of the refusal on the part of the Division Bench to condone the delay. In fact, it was up to the Government Pleader who was a common party in both the revision and the appeal to point out to the learned Single Judge about the dismissal of the condonation of delay application. Very strangely, the Government Pleader did not do that. 1 (2009) 14 SCC 569 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1294 of 2010 Dated 17.06.2025 16. Again, we are at a loss to understand as to how the criminal revision was left out and was not mentioned before the Division Bench deciding the question of condonation of delay in appeal which was filed against the same judgment. In this appeal, however, the first question which has been raised is about the dismissal of the statutory appeal preferred by the State and its effect on the pending revision. The appellant-accused, however, has conveniently avoided to state in the special leave petition as to when he came to know about the dismissal of the condonation of delay application in filing the appeal and how. We cannot, therefore, find fault with the learned Single Judge's judgment who was never apprised of the dismissal of the condonation of delay application. 17. Similarly, since the order refusing to condone the delay is not challenged before us, it will not be possible for us to go into that aspect also. But we must observe that it was the duty of the State counsel to point out that a revision was already pending against the same judgment which was challenged in appeal but which appeal was delayed by more than 800 days at the time when the application for condonation of delay was considered by the Division Bench. Since the appellant-accused had not raised the question about the continuability of the revision before the High Court, we would not ordinarily allow the counsel for the appellant-accused to raise that question before us. 18. Though, we must say that an awkward situation has arisen wherein an appeal against the judgment had failed, though only on the question of limitation, yet, a revision against the same judgment, however, continued and was allowed also and all this happened because of the casual attitude on the part of the State Government tas also the appellant-accused in not pointing out the proper facts to the Courts, both to the Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge. 19. The question is undoubtedly important, and hence, though raised for the first time before us, we propose to decide the same. An incongruous situation has arisen where, though the appeal against the acquittal has been dismissed by not allowing the condonation of delay in filing the same, yet, the revision filed against the said judgment by the private complainant has not only survived but such revision has also been allowed. 20. We must observe that the Division Bench in not allowing the condonation of delay has effectively dismissed the appeal in the 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1294 of 2010 Dated 17.06.2025 sense that it has not allowed the State Government to proceed with the appeal for which there was a provision. This was a prosecution not based on a private complaint but on the police report. Therefore, the State Government had a right under Section 378(2) CrPC to file an appeal and very conspicuously the private party did not have that right. The private complainant, therefore, could only excite the general powers of revision by the High Court. 21. Firstly, we must clarify that when the Division Bench considered the question of condonation of delay in filing the appeal against acquittal, though technically it was deciding the application under Section 378(3) CrPC, it was actually the whole appeal itself which was before it. In this behalf it will have to be seen that the limitation for filing such appeal at the instance of the State Government against acquittal is provided by Article 114 of the Limitation Act. 22. It is undoubtedly true that sub-section (3) of Section 378 CrPC specifically provides that the appeal under sub-sections (1) and (2) cannot be entertained except with the leave of the High Court and, therefore, an application for leave in such appeal filed by the State Government is a must. The limitation for filing the appeal is 90 days from the date of the order while the same article provides for 30 days of limitation from the date of grant of special leave. Therefore, what was before the High Court was the appeal itself and the petitioner prayed the condonation of delay of 801 days in filing the appeal against acquittal. When the High Court declined to grant that permission, it, in effect, refused to entertain the appeal against the order of the trial court, thus making it final. 23. Now, obviously, if the judgment was rendered final by the Division Bench of the High Court then there could not be any subsequent order to the contrary by the Single Judge even if the effect of the pendency of the revision was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. There is no review power under the Criminal Procedure Code to the criminal court including the High Court. Such a review power exists only in this Court. As such, once the High Court had passed the order refusing the condonation of delay of appeal and thereby awarding the finality to the trial court's judgment, that order could be considered and upset only by this Court on a proper appeal having been filed in this Court by the State Government. As against the State 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1294 of 2010 Dated 17.06.2025 Government, the order of the trial court acquitting the appellant- accused had become final. Therefore, the only course left open then in law was to challenge that order refusing to condone the delay in filing appeal against acquittal. 24. It is an admitted fact that such appeal challenging the order passed by the Division Bench was never filed and the order of the Division Bench became final and has remained final till today. Under such circumstances, in our considered opinion, the revision against the same order could not have been entertained, much less allowed upsetting the finality of the trial court's judgment, which finality was confirmed by the order of the High Court by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal against the same trial court judgment. That would be the true import of the appellate powers of the High Court. 32. In this particular case, we are of the clear-cut opinion, that since the trial court’s judgment was given the effect of finality by the Division bench of the High Court then the learned Single Judge of that Court could not have reversed that effect and upset that position.” 5. This Court also, in Crl.R.C.No.1571 of 2008, passed an order dated 21.02.2025 holding that if a Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal in a Sessions Case, and that appeal is either dismissed on merits or dismissed for not condoning the delay, the Criminal Revision Case, filed at the behest of either de-facto complainat or any witnesses, shall not be entertained since the judgment in Criminal Appeal has attained finality. 6. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case cannot be heard otherwise in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Ramachandran v. V.N. Rajan. The Criminal Revision Case cannot be decided on merits, it 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1294 of 2010 Dated 17.06.2025 has to be determined in the lines of the judgment passed in the Criminal Appeal. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.06.2025 RSI 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1294 of 2010 Dated 17.06.2025 156 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1294 of 2010 Date: 17.06.2025 RSI