APHC010508722008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1512 OF 2008 Between: 1. P.V.N.SATYANARAYANA, S/o P.Ramkumar, Vidyuthnagar, Kakinada. ...Petitioner AND 1. MUDUNURI SUBBA RAJ A1 Died, S/o Venkata Raju, Gaigolupadu, Near Somalamma Temple, Kakinada. 2. Mudunuri Satya Raju Sathi Raju A3, S/o Rama Raju, M Gaigolupadu, Near Somalamma Temple, Kakinada. 3. Sangisetty Ashok A4, S/o Suryanarayana, D.No. 70-3-64/2, City Colony, Ramanaiahpet, Kakinada. 4. Gogineni Rajababu A5, S/o Venkateswara Rao, D.No.2-171-1, Venkatangar, Kakinada. 5. Keerthi Venkata Nagarjuna A6, S/o Satyanarayana, D.No.69-3A-8, SBH Colony, Nagavanam, Kakinada. 6. Kotipallui Venkata Rama Naidu A7, S/o Venkata Muniswamy Naidu, D.No.2-33-4, Peketivari Street, Kakinada. 7. Aravapalli Butcheswara Rao A8 Died, S/o Raghavaiah, D.No.2-17-C1, Venkatangar, Kakinada. Since Accused No.1/Respondent No.1 and Accused No.8/Respondent No.7 are died, Criminal Revision Case against 2 Accused No.1/Respondent No.1 and Accused No.8/Respondent No.7 are abated as per Court order dated 30.06.2025 in Crl.R.C.No.1512 of 2008. 8. The State of A P, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI Counsel for the Respondents: MANIKANTESWARA RAO KOTHA The Court made the following order: 3 ORDER: Instant criminal revision case has been filed against the order dated 21.04.2008 passed in C.C.No.229 of 2003 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada. The learned Magistrate concerned has passed an order of acquittal against all the accused persons/unofficial respondents. The petitioner being P.W.1, aggrieved by the order of acquittal, preferred the present criminal revision case. 2. Brief facts of the matter are that there are disputes relating to title and possession of a land bearing Survey No.192/6 at Vidyuthnagar, Kakinada, to an extent of Ac.2.72 cents. A civil suit was filed by the accused persons in O.S.No.188 of 1996 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, claiming rights over the said land, which was dismissed. It was alleged that on 02.11.2001 at about 10.00 P.M., A-1 to A-9 accompanied by their henchmen forcibly entered into the land with a view to occupy the same, demolished the watchman shed and caused wrongful loss to the complainant. It was further alleged that when L.W.2 resisted them, he was forcibly sent out by putting him under threat and that A-1 to A-9 criminally intimidated P.W.1. On 11.11.2001, P.W.1 lodged a report with the concerned Police Station, based on which Crime No.202 of 2001 was registered under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC against all the accused. Trial was conducted. During trial, prosecution 4 examined witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked some documents as Exs.P-1 to P-9. From the defence side, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and documents viz., Exs.D-1 to D-11 were marked. After closure of trial and after hearing the parties, learned trial Court acquitted all the accused of the respective charges. Hence, this criminal revision case. 3. Heard Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and Sri P. Somayaji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record and order of learned trial Court. 4. It appears from evidence on record that none of material prosecution witnesses clearly identified all accused before Court. Moreover, there are documents relied upon by defence in respect of their claim over land, which were marked as Exs.D-2 to D-6. The learned trial Court also noticed that dispute between parties is essentially relating to title and possession of land in Survey No.192/6. Rights of parties cannot be effectively determined in criminal proceedings. P.W.1 claimed possession of disputed land on basis of lease, whereas P.W.2 and L.W.3 were stated to be owners/persons in possession of land and L.W.3, who was a material witness, was not examined. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 was also found not to be corroborative with regard to occurrence. Further, there was delay of nine days in lodging complaint, though scene of offence was situated at about one kilometre from Police Station, and no satisfactory explanation was offered for such delay. The learned trial Court also noticed that no damaged material or photographs were produced to 5 substantiate alleged damage and that prosecution failed to establish specific acts of criminal intimidation against accused. 5. Having heard parties and on consideration of entire circumstances, it appears that learned trial Court has appreciated evidence and material available on record and recorded its findings after considering both prosecution and defence evidence. The findings of learned trial Court are based on evidence and circumstances available on record and cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to material on record. The prosecution failed to establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with impugned order passed by learned trial Court, as it does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The criminal revision case is therefore liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 6. Accordingly, instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. _______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date:28.09.2026 JLSR 6 7 171 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1512 of 2008 28.09.2026 JLSR