APHC010092712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No:2254 OF 2025 & CRIMINAL PETITION No.2162 OF 2025 Between: Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. and another …Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati and another …Respondents/complainants Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Sri Rama Murthy P.V.S.A. Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): Ld. Public Prosecutor The Court made the following common order: 1. In these criminal petitions, the petitioner is challenging the orders, dated 03.02.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Ramachandrapuram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, in respective Criminal Revision Petition Nos.2 & 3 of -2- CRL.P. No.2162 of 2025 & CRL.P. No.2254 of 2025 2025, which were filed against the respective orders, dated 16.01.2025, passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthi, in Crl.M.P. No.48 of 2025 and Crl.M.P. No.2596 of 2024 in C.C. No.241 of 2015. 2. The petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No.48 of 2025 before the learned Magistrate seeking to declare the proceedings initiated in C.C. No.241 of 2015 invalid on the ground that the vakalathnama of the complainant’s advocate is missing. The petitioner also filed Crl. M.P. No.2596 of 2024 before the learned Magistrate to dismiss the complaint in C.C. No.241 of 2015 and discharge the accused. The learned Magistrate had dismissed these criminal miscellaneous petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed criminal revision petitions before the learned Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, which were dismissed on 03.02.2025. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed both the revision petitions observing that the petitioner is attempting to delay the proceedings which were initiated 12 years back. While dismissing the revision petitions, the learned Sessions Judge also imposed the costs of Rs.10,000/- in each revision petition. -3- CRL.P. No.2162 of 2025 & CRL.P. No.2254 of 2025 3. As the petitioner set forth no valid grounds to interfere with the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order may be modified to the extent of imposition of costs of Rs.10,000/- in each revision petition. 4. Considering the submissions, this court deems it appropriate to set aside the orders, dated 03.02.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, in Crl. Revision Petition No.2 of 2025 and 2 of 2025 in Crl. M.P. No.48 of 2025 in C.C. No.241 of 2015, to the extent of costs. The rest of the respective orders shall stand upheld. 5. Accordingly, these criminal petitions are disposed off. 6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending if any in these criminal petitions shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV