Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 48944 (AP)

KANDURI UMAR MAHESWARUDU & 3 OTHER v. TALATAM BHUVANA SRINIVAS & 4 OTHER

CRLRC/776/2012 · 2025-12-22

Subhendu Samanta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010496162012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. KANDURI UMAR MAHESWARUDU, S/O LATE SUBRAHMANYAM R/O 23-06-23, KOMMUVARI STREET SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-11, KRISHNA DISTRICT 2. KANDURI KANAKA DURGA, W/O KANDURI UMA MAHESWARUDU R/O 23-06-23, KOMMUVARI STREET VIJAYAWADA-11, KRISHNA DISTRICT 3. KANDURI PRAKASAM, S/O LATE SUBRAHMANYAM R/O 23 KOMMUVARI STREET SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT 4. P.BHADRADI SITARAMA MURTHY, S/O RAMAMURTHY SASTRY R/O 23-06-23, KOMMUVA VIJAYAWADA-11, KRISHNA DISTRICT 1. TALATAM BHUVANA SRINIVAS KOTILINGALAPET, RAJAHMUNDRY E.G.DISTRICT 2. KALAGA VEERA VENKATA SIRISH KUMAR, S/O RAMABABU R/O 30-20/3-15/1, GEETHA MANDIRAM STREET CHUTTUGUNTA, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT 3. THE STATE REP BY THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA CITY BEING THE COMPETENT AUTHORITHY UNDER ACT 17 OF 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 776 OF 2012 KANDURI UMAR MAHESWARUDU, S/O LATE SUBRAHMANYAM R/O 23, KOMMUVARI STREET SATYANARAYANAPURAM, 11, KRISHNA DISTRICT KANDURI KANAKA DURGA, W/O KANDURI UMA MAHESWARUDU 23, KOMMUVARI STREET SATYANARAYANAPURAM, 11, KRISHNA DISTRICT KANDURI PRAKASAM, S/O LATE SUBRAHMANYAM R/O 23 KOMMUVARI STREET SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT P.BHADRADI SITARAMA MURTHY, S/O RAMAMURTHY SASTRY 23, KOMMUVARI STREET SATYANARAYANAPURAM, 11, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND HUVANA SRINIVAS, S/O LATE SURYA RAO R/O 13 KOTILINGALAPET, RAJAHMUNDRY E.G.DISTRICT KALAGA VEERA VENKATA SIRISH KUMAR, S/O RAMABABU R/O 15/1, GEETHA MANDIRAM STREET CHUTTUGUNTA, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT THE STATE REP BY THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA CITY BEING THE COMPETENT AUTHORITHY UNDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3560] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA 2012 KANDURI UMAR MAHESWARUDU, S/O LATE SUBRAHMANYAM R/O 23, KOMMUVARI STREET SATYANARAYANAPURAM, KANDURI KANAKA DURGA, W/O KANDURI UMA MAHESWARUDU SATYANARAYANAPURAM, KANDURI PRAKASAM, S/O LATE SUBRAHMANYAM R/O 23-06-23, KOMMUVARI STREET SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-11, P.BHADRADI SITARAMA MURTHY, S/O RAMAMURTHY SASTRY RI STREET SATYANARAYANAPURAM, ...PETITIONER(S) , S/O LATE SURYA RAO R/O 13-2-28, KALAGA VEERA VENKATA SIRISH KUMAR, S/O RAMABABU R/O 15/1, GEETHA MANDIRAM STREET CHUTTUGUNTA, THE STATE REP BY THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA CITY BEING THE COMPETENT AUTHORITHY UNDER 2 4. MALAPAKA SRINIVASULU, S/O LATE SURYA PRAKASAM R/O VANAPALAVARI STREET, MUTYALAMPADU VIJAYAWADA 5. MALAPAKA SRIDEVI, D/O LATE SURYA PRAKASAM R/O VANAPALAVARI STREET, MUTYALAMPADU VIJAYAWADA ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. J V S H SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order : Smt. Haritha Vunnava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that she has no instructions and no connection with the clients. 2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised an objection on the point of maintainability of the instant Criminal Revision Case. 3. The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against an order dated 07.05.2012 in Crl.M.P.No. 122 of 2011. It appears that learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, (for brevity ‘Special Court’) on the prayer of unofficial Respondents raised an order of attachment, which was passed in pursuance of an interim order in respect of Item No.37 and 38 of Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.205, Home (General-B) Department, dated 07.08.2010. 3 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that learned Special Judge has heard the Petition in terms of provisions under Section 7(3) of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for brevity “APPDFE Act’). He submits that in pursuance to the Section 11 of the APPDFE Act, only Appeal is maintainable against any order passed by a Special Court. The instant proceeding being Criminal Revision filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. I perused the provisions of law of the APPDFE Act. It appears that to crab menace of illegal activities of unscrupulous establishments in the state of Andhra Pradesh, the Legislature Assembly of this State has enacted and published APPDFE Act on 1st July, 1999 to safeguard the interest of innocent depositors. In pursuance of Section 3 of the APPDFE Act, the Special Judge has given power to attach the property of default in respect of depositors. A power was given to the Special Court regarding attachment. The Special Court was also given power to pass an interim order in terms of Section 6 of the APPDFE Act. It appears that learned Court below in pursuance of Section 7 of the APPDFE Act has passed an order under Section 3 of the APPDFE Act, thereby, the interim order of attachment was wearing by release the some portion of attached property. 6. Section 11 of the APPDFE Act is set out hereunder for ready reference: 4 11. Appeal- Any person including the competent authority, if aggrieved by an order of the Special Court, may appeal to the High Court within thirty days from the date of such order. 7. On perusal of Section 11 of the APPDFE Act, it appears that any person aggrieved by an order of Special Court may file an Appeal before the High Court within specified 30 days. This being an application under Section 227 of the Constitution of India is not an Appeal. Furthermore, this Court has no roster to entertain the Appeal. 8. Considering the situation, I find no jurisdiction to entertain the instant Criminal Revision Case. 9. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is considered and rejected as without jurisdiction. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date: 23.12.2025 KK