APHC010183362023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI I.A.No.2 of 2023 IN/AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 448/2023 Between: MARAM SAROJINI, W/O. LATE SUBBA REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O. RAJANAGARAM VILLAGE, THALLUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...APELLANT AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2.KOMATIGUNTA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. PEDDA CHANDRAIAH, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O. RAJANAGARAM VILLAGE, THALLUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPODENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 I.A.No.2 of 2023 in/and Crl.A.No.448 of 2023 The Court made the following ORDER :- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur in S.C. No.76 of 2021, dated 05.08.2022, the defacto complainant/P.W.1 filed the present Appeal. As there was delay of 148 days in filing the present Appeal, the appellant filed the present application along with the Appeal seeking to condone the said delay. 2. On 26.03.2025 when the present application was listed, notice was ordered and the learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to take out personal notice to the 2nd respondent/Accused by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due and to file proof of service into the Registry. On 30.04.2025, when the matter was listed, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the notice could not be served and the same was returned with an endorsement ‘addressee absent’. Hence, this Court permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to take out fresh personal notice to the 2nd respondent. 3. As the notice on the 2nd respondent was not served, once again on 18.08.2025, this Court permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to take out fresh personal notice to R.2. 4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the 2nd respondent is not traceable and the petitioner/appellant is also unreachable. As whereabouts of both the parties are not known, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant filed her sworn affidavit stating that the petitioner/appellant as well as the respondent No.2 are untraceable and requested this Court to close the present application seeking to condone the delay. 3 I.A.No.2 of 2023 in/and Crl.A.No.448 of 2023 5. In view of the said statement and in view of the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, the present delay petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2023 is dismissed. Consequently, the present Criminal Appeal also stands dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J ______________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI,J Dt. 04.11.2025 SAB 4 I.A.No.2 of 2023 in/and Crl.A.No.448 of 2023 33 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI I.A.No.2 of 2023 IN/AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 448/2023 Dt. 04.11.2025 SAB