APHC010033572026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 92/2026 Between: JAGATAP MAHESH KUMAR ALIAS JASHUVA, S/O.MUKKARANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO.501, 5TH FLOOR, SRI RAMA RESIDENCY, DONKA ROAD, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused No.1 seeking to set aside the docket Order dated 29.12.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.2051 of 2025 in C.C.No.3210 of 2023 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada. 2. Heard Sri E.Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein, who is Accused No.1, has filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.2051 of 2 2025 in C.C.No.3210 of 2023 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada seeking to defreeze the amounts which were seized by the Investing Agency, which are lying in the accounts of the Petitioner with HDFC and ICICI Banks. Learned counsel would further submit that the said petition was numbered and the learned trial Judge ordered notice to the Public Prosecutor. Suddenly, his application was returned stating that the matter was already disposed of and how again the same petition is maintainable. It is further submitted that the office of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada is not even taking the petition after resubmission. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders, since it appears that it is a procedural irregularity. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the original docket sheet of the petition placed before this Court would show that the said petition was numbered as Crl.M.P.No.2051 of 2025, and notice was ordered to the Public Prosecutor on 24.12.2025. The matter was adjourned to 29.12.2025 and on the said date, the petition was returned with an objection as to how the petition is maintainable. 6. It is apposite to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, emphasized that judicial orders must be reasoned orders and that administrative or mechanical disposal of judicial proceedings is impermissible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another 1 (2010) 10 SCC 539 3 decision in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan2, categorically held that recording of reasons is an essential component of justice delivery and ensures transparency and fairness in judicial decision- making. 7. Once the trial Court registered the petition as Crl.M.P. and ordered notice, it assumed judicial seisin of the matter. If the petition was not maintainable, the only proper course is to pass a speaking order on maintainability. Returning the petition without adjudication, after numbering and issuing notice, runs contrary to the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 8. In the instant case, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, it is a procedural irregularity. The learned Judge having considered the petition and registered it as Crl.M.P.No.2051 of 2025, could have heard the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and taken a decision on the merits of the case. In case the petition is not maintainable, the Court can pass a reasoned order. The petition was simply returned after registration of the same and issuance of notice to the other side, which is in contravention of the Criminal Rules of Practice and administration of criminal justice. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra, this Court is of the view that mechanical return of the petition, after numbering 2 (2010) 9 SCC 496 4 and issuance of notice, without adjudication, is contrary to settled principles governing administration of justice. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the docket Order dated 29.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2051 of 2025 in C.C.No.3210 of 2023 by the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada. Registry is directed to return the original petition along with the docket sheet to the Petitioner on proper identification and acknowledgment. The Petitioner is directed to place the same before the Court concerned, and the learned Judge is directed to take an appropriate decision over the matter, in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:06.02.2026 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.92 of 2026 Dt.06.02.2026 Dinesh