IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1580 OF 2025 Between: V Satheesh, S/o. Subrahmanyam Naidu, Aged 29, R/o. D.No.4-20, Setin Thangal, Kurchivedu, Narasingarayanipetta, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner/LW-1/ Victim AND 1. Sriram Chandrasekhar @ Chintu, S/o. Subramanyam Naidu, Aged 45, R/o. D.No.28-761/1, Kannaiah Naidu Colony, Chittoor Town and Mandal. 2. Govindaswamy Srinivasaiah Venkatachalapathi @ Muibhagal Venkatesh @ Rezar Venkatesh, S/o. Srinivasaiah, Aged 51, R/o. D.No. 17, Someswarapalya, Muibhagal, Kolar District, Karnataka State. Native of Veluduru village, Obili Srinivasapuram Taluk, Kolar District, Karnataka State. 3. Kottevalla Jayaprakash Reddy @ Jaya @ Reddy, S/o. Munirathnam, Aged 23, R/o. Vinayaka temple, Ganganapalle, Chittoor town, and Mandal. 4. Thoti Manjunadh @ Manju, S/o. Munichowdappa, age 27 years R/o. Maredupalle village and panchayath, Gangavaram district. Mandal, Chittoor 5. Munirathnam Venkatesh @ Mala Venkatesu @ Ganganapalle Venkatesu, D.No.28-660. Ganganapalle,. S/o. Munirathnam, Aged 39, R/o. Chittoortown and Mandal. 6. Murugan @ Muruga, S/o. Subramanyam, aged 41, R/o. Subhashchandrabose Street, Santhapeta, Chittoor. 7. Venkata Yoganandam, S/o. RCV Subbaiah Setti, age 35 years, R/o. K.C. Garden, S.P. Bungalow Road, Kongareddipalle, Chittoortown and Mandal. 8. K. Parandama, S/o. M.S.Kannan, age 30, R/o. Ganganapalle, Chittoor town. D.No.5-1004, 9. Yellamandala Haridasu, S/o. M.Chinnabba Naidu, aged 44, R/o. Mattampalle village, Kalavakunta, Penumuru Mandal, Chittoor District. 10. Kuppala Chandrasekhar @ Mogili, S/o. Kuppala Radhakrishna, aged 42 R/o. D. No.28-652, Ganganapalle, Chittoor town. Nataraja Sasidhar, S/o. Nataraja Gurukul, aged 42, R/o. D.No.322, 7th Cross, DMBR layout, Bounsvadi, Bangalore. Native of Someswarapalya, Muibhagal, Kolar district, Karnataka State. 11. 12. Mallamgunta Sreenivasulu Yoganand, S/o. Sreenivasulu Naidu, aged 49, R/o. D. No.2-959, Postal colony, Kongareddypalle, Chittoor Town. D. Nagesh Babu @ RVT Babu, S/o. D.Gangi Reddy, aged 38, R/o. D.No.31-85/2, Lie colony, Kothaindiu, Punganur, Chittoor District. Bandolla Lokesh 13. 14. S/o. Nagulappa @ Nagulu, aged 23, R/o. Dandupalem village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor district. 15. Para Raghupathi, S/o. Venkateswarlu Naidu, Dandupalem village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor district. Gullanna Nagaraju, S/o. G.Muni Venkatappa, Durgasandram village, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar district, Karnataka State. aged 29, R/o. 16. aged 30, R/o. 17. Keelapatia Venkata Anand Kumar, S/o. Venkataramana, aged 38, R/o. Katiperi village, Chowdepalle Mandal, presently residing beside Market Yard, Punganur, Chittoor district. 18. Baddela Kamalakar, S/o. B. Ekambaram Naidu, aged 45, DGM in Narayana Educational Institutions, Gorivigiri, Kadugudi Main road. Bangalore, residing at Plat No.302, A-Block Tower-1, AWHO Apartments, Kadugudi main road. Bangalore. Ramakrishnan Rajanikanth @ Rajini, S/o. Late K.M. Ramakrishnan, aged 38, R/o. D.No. 14-587, New Kayanikattu street, Chittoor. Kuppaswamy T.S.Kuppuswamy, aged 41, R/o. D.No.27-960, Palamaner Road, Chittoor town. 19. 20. Thutala Narendrababu Narendra, S/o. 21. S.Srinivasachar @ Srinivasachary, (Died-Abated) S/o. Seshachar, aged 79, R/o. Diguvapalle village, Chinthamani taluk, Chikballapur District, Karnataka State. 22. Kasam Ramesh, (Discharged) S/o. K. Narayana, aged 40, R/o. D.No.5-731, Muthyalamma temple street, Srikalahasthi. 23. Thirupathur Govindarajan Suresh @ I.G. Suresh @ Bullet Suresh, aged 50 S/o. T.G.Sreenivasan, R/o. D.No.27-1092, Telephone colony, Chittoor town and Mandal. ...Respondents/ Respondents/ Accused The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by SDPO, Chittoor, (Chittoor I Town PS), Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Nelapadu, Amaravati. 24. ...Respondent/ Petitioner/ Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be Pleased to quash/set-aside the docket order dated 22-01-2025 passed in S.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - Special Court for Trial of Offences Against Women, Chittoor I.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition he High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the docket order dated 22-01-2025 passed in S.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge - Special Court for Trial of Offences Against Women, Chittoor. t cum - I.A, NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in S.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - Special Court for Trial of Offences Against Women, Chittoor, pending disposal of the Criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Sai Surya Teja, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) behalf of the Respondent No.24 and of Sri D.Purna Chandra Advocate for the Respondents The Court made the following: on Reddy, APHC010070772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1580/2025 Between: V Satheesh ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Sriram Chandrasekhar Chintu and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.PSAI SURYATEJA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.D PURNACHANDRA REDDY 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) II2II CRLP.No. 1580 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N CRIMINAL PETITION No.1580 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner is challenging the docket order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge - Cum — Special Court for Trial of Offences against Chittoor. women 2. The petitioner is listed witness No.1 (LW.1) and the sanction proceedings were sought to be marked through V.Siva Subramanyam/PW-56. The PW-56 who was the Clerk in the office of District Collector and he was the person and during his service he had processed the application and that he would also identify the signature of the sanctioning authority, the document sought to be marked. was 3. The defence objected for marking the said document through PW- 56 as PW-56 is neither the author of the document nor is he the competent person to get the document marked on behalf of the Collector. 4. The learned Judge has considered the objection raised by the defence counsel and sustained the objection raised by the defence counsel. CRLP.No.1580 of 2025 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the second round of litigation. The prosecution has filed Crl.MP.No.512 of 2024 in SC.No.110 of 2016 seeking to V.Siva Subramanyam, who had retired from 31.08.2017 as Deputy Tahsildar. The prosecution proposed to examine him and confront the Collector’s proceedings in D.Dis.C4/616/2016, dated 17.02.2016. The defence objected for marking the said document and also for summoning V.Siva Subramanyam. The learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the prosecution filed the Criminal Petition No.7448 of 2024, which was allowed by this Court on 07.12.2024. The operative portion reads as follows ; summon service on In that view, to give a fair opportunity to both sides to prove their respective contentions before the court of law, in the interest ofjustice, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The prosecution is permitted to examined Sri V.Siva Subramanyam, as a witness on behalf of the prosecution to speak about the sanction proceedings and for identification of the signature of the District Collector on the sanction proceedings. To meet the ends of Justice, the learned Trial Judge is directed to take up the matter for examining the rest of witnesses in a day to day basis since the sessions case is of the year 2016 without giving any adjournment in a casual way on mere asking. 6. The witness was summoned as desired by the prosecution. However, the sanctioned proceedings which were proposed to be marked by the prosecution was objected by the defence on the CRLP.No.1580 of 2025 ground that V.Siva Subramanyam (PW-56) was not authorized to give evidence on behalf of the Collector or on behalf of the Government. Thus, the evidence of PW-56 was not permitted to mark the sanctioned the proceedings. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that it is not essential for the prosecution to mark the exhibit through the PW-56 and the same could also be marked through the investigating officer whose examination was scheduled. It is also submitted that the PW-56 is an incompetent witness for marking the sanctioned proceedings issued by the Collector. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the witness is competent to identify the signature of the Collector and thus is a competent witness to mark the said proceedings. 9. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 10. Rule 240 (4) of the Criminal Rules of Practice would entitle a Retired Government Servant to give evidence in respect of his official acts or matters within his knowledge before retirement shall be paid Travelling and Subsistence Allowance according to the non CRLP.No.1580 of 2025 rates he would have been eligible under the Andhra Pradesh Travelling Allowance Rules, had he not retired from service. 11. The order of the learned trial judge upholding the objections raised by the defence counsel cannot sustain and deserved to be aside. PW-56 who retired as Deputy Tahsildar is aware of the sanctioned proceedings and he is able to identify the signature of the person who issued the sanctioned proceedings. It is not necessary for a witness to be an author of that document for marking it. It is also not necessary for the witness to be who have issued such proceedings for marking it. set 12. The contention of the respondent that the same could also be marked by the Investigating Officer would not disentitle prosecution to get it marked through a witness who is aware of the proceedings and who is able to identify the proceedings and also identify the signature of the issuing authority. The said witness when confronted with such proceedings he would depose all that he knows about the confronted document and the marked subject to objection. the same can be 13. With these observations the docket proceeding dated 22.01.2025 denying the opportunity of adducing evidence by PW-56 sanctioned proceedings is hereby set aside and the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge - Cum - Special Court for on the CRLP.No. 1580 of 2025 Trial of Offences against women, Chittoor shall permit the prosecution to further examine PW-56 for the purpose for which he was summoned to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution. 14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAF! ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I' //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The VI Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - Special Court for Trial of Offences Against Women, Chittoor, Chittoor District 2. One CC to Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. T\no CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies MV sree HIGH COURT DATED: 12/03/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.1580 of 2025 = 0 2 APK 2W5 . Current Section p *T C ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION