APHC010587132024 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: 1336 OF 2024 Revision filed under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS and under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the orders dated 15.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1728 of 2024 in Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2019, on the file of the 1 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor District at Chittoor and consequently allow the Crl.M.P.No.1728 of 2024. Between: 1. S.Sankarappa, S/o T.Venkatappa, age 45 Thimmarajapuram Village, H/o Yalakallu, District. 2. Batlapalli Venkataswamy, S/o B.Gangappa, age 41 years. Residing at Thimmarajapuram Village, H/o Yalakallu, District. 3. Thotolla Venkatramappa, S/o late Thoti Residing at Thimmarajapuram Village, H/o Yalakallu, V.Kota years. Residing at V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor Pedda Muneppa, age 51 years, Mandal, Chittoor District. 4. Avulappolla Venkatramappa, S/o Avulappa, age 49 years. Residing at Thimmarajapuram Village, H/o Yalakallu V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor District. 5. Mommiderlapalli Shyamappa @ Ramappa, S/o Munivenkatappa, age 36 years. Residing at Thimmarajapuram Village, H/o Yalakallu, V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor District. 6. Mommiderlapalli Munivenkatappa @ Abbanna, S/o Venkatappa, age 68 years. Residing at Thimmarajapuram Village, H/o Yalakallu, V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor District. 7. Batlapalli Amaranatha, S/o B.Munivenkatappa, age 42 years. Residing at Thimmarajapuram Village, H/o Yalakallu, V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor District. 8. Karrireddipalli Subramanyam, S/o late Krishnappa, age 46 years. Residing at Thimmarajapuram Village, H/o Yalakallu, V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor District. 9. Karrireddipalli Ashok Kumar, S/o K.Venkatachalapathi, age 26 years. Residing at Thimmarajapuram Village, H/o Yalakallu, V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor District. lO.Valgam Suresh, S/o late Narayanappa, age 54 years. Residing at Yerringepalli Village, H/o Yalakallu, V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor District 11. Kondapolla Krishnappa, S/o Hanumanthu, age 44 years. Residing at Yerringepalli Village, H/o Yalakallu, V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor District 12. C.Bhaskar, S/o C.Rangappa, age 34 years. Residing at Yerringepalli Village, H/o Yalakallu, V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor District ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 12 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, through V.Kota P.S., Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENT/STATE lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 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 including appearance of the petitioners f in Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2019, on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor District at Chittoor, pending disposal of Revision. Counsel for Petitioners ; SRI K.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO, ADVOCATE Counsel for Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. The Court made the following ORDER ; APHC010587132024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1336/2024 Between: S. Sankarappa and others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): K V L Narasimha Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’)/ 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging the order dated 15.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1728 of 2024 in (Special) Sessions Case No.23 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 260 of BNSS (Section 239 of ‘the Cr.P.C’) was dismissed. 2 Dr.V Crl.R.C.No.l336 of 2c. Dated 16.07.202, 2. Sn K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, urged that all the petitioners belong to the scheduled caste community. 3. The provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') would not be applicable. The beginning words of Section 3(2) of ‘the Act., “Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste start with, or a Scheduled Tribe - indicate that persons belonging to either the SC or ST are not liable for punishment under any of the provisions of the ‘the Act’. Ironically, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against petitioners No.1 to 9 under the provisions of ‘the Act. ’ even though they are not liable for prosecution punishment under the provisions of ‘the Act’. As observed or supra, ‘the Act.,’ does not apply to the people belonging to the SC/ST communities. 4. The learned Special Judge rightly mentioned that the provisions of ‘the Act., do not apply to petitioners No.1 to 9. However, he pointed out that the petitioners were charged for the offences punishable under Section 143, 447, 427, 323, 506, read with Section 34 of ‘the I.P.C’. Therefore, the learned Special Judge has rightly dismissed the discharge petition. He mentioned that, per the charge sheet. Accused Nos. 10 to 12 belong to communities other than the SC or ST. as 3 -9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l336 of 2024 Dated 16.07.2025 S' 5. In view of the above reasons, this criminal revision case is disposed of with a direction to the learned Special Judge to proceed with the trial without framing charges under the provisions of ‘the Act’ against petitioners No.1 to 9. It is made clear that the learned Special Judge would proceed to frame charges against petitioners No.1 to 9 under Sections 143, 447, 427, 323, 506 if any, sufficient material is available on the record r/w 34 of ‘the I.P.C. against the petitioners No.1 to 9. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, the provisions of ‘the Act’ do not apply to petitioners No.1 to 9 and only the provisions of ‘the I.P.C.,’ are relevant. The Investigating Officer would have filed the charge sheet before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate for the offences punishable under the provisions of 'the I.P.C'.. The case would have been tried by the learned Magistrate. If any adverse judgment were passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioners would have had the opportunity of filing an appeal before the Sessions Court, and the opportunity of filing a revision before this Court against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, all these remedies of appeal before the Sessions Court and revision before this Court are now frustrated. 7. This argument, however, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the right of revision is not a statutory right. Of course, the right of appeal is a statutory right,^and it is nothing but a continuation of the original proceedings. Furthermore, the petitioners would have an had 4 Dr.Yu Crl.R.C.No.l336 of20< Dated 16.07.202S the opportunity of filing to file an appeal against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, if the case were had been tried by the learned Special Judge.. 8. Be that as it may, the petition under Section 239 of ‘the Cr.P.C., filed challenging the filing of the charge sheet against petitioners No.1 under the provisions of ‘the Act’. As observed supra, the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet, concluded that No.1 to 9 also under the provisions of ‘the Act’. Ironically, the Investigating Officer, who is in the rank of the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, ought to have displayed a semblance of care and responsibility in mentioning clearly that provisions of ‘the Act.,’ do not apply to the petitioners No.1 to 9 inasmuch as they belong to the scheduled caste community. At any rate, as the learned Special Judge mentioned in his order that there are other offences under the provisions of ‘the I.P.C.,’ which are prima facie made out against petitioners No.1 to 9, the criminal has no merits. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case deserved to be disposed of with a direction to the learned Special Judge not to frame any charges against petitioners No.1 to 9 under the provisions of ‘the Act’. It is made clear that the Accused Nos. 10 to 12 do not belong to either the SC or ST community. Therefore, the learned Special Judge is at liberty to proceed against them under the provisions of “the Act’. was to 9 a case was made out against petitioners 9. revision case 10. 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l336of 2024 Dated 16.07.2025 11. The learned Special Judge is further directed to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.1728 of 2024 in (Special) Sessions Case No.23 of 2019 as early as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District. (By Rpad) 2. One CC to Sri K.V.L.Narasimha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi [OUT] 4. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies GPC TAC high court DATED; 16/07/2025 ORDER ORLRC NO. 1336 OF 2024 OCT W® r" CA disposing of CASE THIS criminal revision