APHC010581932010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 715/2010 Between: 1. SIRASANI SOMI REDDY,, S/O. RAMI REDDY, CULTIVATION, R/O. KOLLIPARA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. EEMANI SUBBA REDDY AND 2 OTHERS, S/O. GURAVA REDDY, R/O. THUMULURU VILLAGE , KOLLIPARA MANDAL, TENALI, 2. EEMANI GURAVA REDDY, S/O. SUBBA REDDY, R/O. THUMULURU VILLAGE , KOLLIPARA MANDAL, TENALI, 3. THE STATE OF A P REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,HYDERABAD ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, enali dt.05th October 2009 acquitting the accused of offence under Sections 307 r/w 34 IPC the petitioner/Complainant begs to prefer the Memornadum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case. IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 316 OF 2010 Petition under Section 151 CPC 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 23 days in filing the Criminal Revision Case Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following: O R D E R 1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed on behalf of the petitioner/P.W.1 assailing the Judgment dated 05.10.2009 passed in S.C.No.744 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali (for short, ‘1st appellate Court’) whereby acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, no representation is made on behalf of the petitioner/P.W.1 and the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 despite listing the matter under the caption ‘for dismissal’. It seems that the revision petitioner has no interest to proceed with the matter. 3. Perused the material on record. 4. Considering the material on record, this Court finds no merit in the revision and accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed for default. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 17.07.2025 MS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 715 of 2010 Date: 17.07.2025 MS