APHC010056682025 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 Nos: 170 & 176 / 2025 Between: JUPUDI SURESH BABU, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O D.NO.7-18-2 I.C.I.C.I BANK STREET, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AP ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI. 2. P SURYA PRAKASA RAO, S/O APPARAO AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/O SANTHA MARKET VEEDHI, KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, GOKAVARAM MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AP ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KATTA SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAMBHU PRASAD PEDIREDDI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: The instant Criminal Revision Cases under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS have been filed by the Petitioner / Accused seeking to set aside the Orders dated 22.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.Nos.127 & 128 of 2025 in C.C.No.172 of 2017 on the file of the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram. 2 2. Since both the revision cases are arising out of one and the same case, these matters are heard and disposed of together by way of common judgment. 3. Heard Sri Katta Sudhakar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri Sambhu Prasad Pedireddi, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to settled law. Learned counsel would further submit that, as the Petitioner was suffering from heart problem, he could not attend before the trial Court. It is further submitted that the Court may, at any stage of the enquiry or trial or other proceedings, reopen or recall or summons and examine any witness if the evidence appears to be essential to arrive at a just conclusion. Learned counsel would finally submit that a fair opportunity may be given to the Petitioner for adducing rebuttal evidence on his behalf. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in one voice, would submit that the learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the material on record, in a proper perspective, has rightly dismissed the applications filed by the Petitioner. There are no grounds warranting interference of this Court in the impugned orders. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 6. This Court has perused the material on record and the impugned orders. The record clearly discloses that the trial Court afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunities to the Petitioner to adduce defence evidence. The 3 Petitioner failed to avail such opportunities. The plea of illness does not satisfactorily explain his repeated defaults, particularly when opportunities were granted even prior to the alleged medical condition. The learned trial Judge has exercised discretion judiciously and recorded reasons while dismissing the applications. 7. The power to reopen or recall evidence is discretionary and is to be exercised to meet the ends of justice. The same cannot be invoked to fill up lacunae or to prolong the proceedings, especially when the conduct of the party indicates lack of diligence. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before appropriate forum, if so advised. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:06.02.2026 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.Nos.170 & 176 / 2025 Dt.06.02.2026 Dinesh