APHC010093372026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 189/2026 Between: 1. TETALI SURYA REDDY, S/O LATE SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. PARTNER, M/S. SRI SURYASREE CASHEW PRODUCTS, RJO D. NO. 1-383, SUBBAREDDY GARI STREET, PERA RAMACHANDRAPURAM VILLAGE, ANAPARTHI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. TETALI SUDHAKAR REDDY, S/O SURYAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. PROPRIETOR, M/S. SRI LALITHA DEVI CASHEW PRODUCTS, R/O D. NO. 1-383, SUBBAREDDY GARI STREET, PERA RAMACHANDRAPURAM VILLAGE, ANAPARTHI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/ACB, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M.SRAVAN KUMAR, Spl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR C.B.I. The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to set aside the Order dated 24.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.834 of 2024 in C.C.No.1830 of 2022 on the file of 2 the Court of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special Judge for CBI Cases (Non-PC Act), Vijayawada and consequently to discharge the Petitioners from the case. 2. Heard Sri V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, and Sri M.Sravan Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that impugned order is contrary to law and passed mechanically without examining whether the ingredients of alleged offences are made out. Learned counsel would further submit that the contents of the charge-sheet also do not disclose any offence against the Petitioners. It is further contended that the dispute is contractual in nature relating to alleged stock shortages, for which civil remedies lie, and criminal proceedings cannot be used for recovery. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no material to establish forgery or use of forged documents, nor any evidence linking the Petitioners to such acts. The allegation of conspiracy is also baseless, lacking any proof of overt acts. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled to discharge. 4. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI would submit that the impugned order is well-reasoned, and passed upon due application of mind to the material on record and cannot be said to be mechanical. It is submitted that the charge-sheet discloses a strong prima facie case against the Petitioners, and detailed evaluation of evidence is impermissible at this stage. The contention of a purely civil dispute is untenable in view of material indicating criminality, including misappropriation, forgery, and conspiracy. 3 Hence, the Petitioners are not entitled to discharge and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the view that, the material collected during investigation, prima facie discloses the involvement of the Petitioners in the alleged offences. At the stage of discharge, a detailed evaluation of evidence is impermissible, and the Court is only required to see whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed. The impugned order demonstrates due application of mind and reasons based on the material on record. As such, it cannot be termed as mechanical or perverse. The contention that the dispute is purely civil in nature is untenable, as the allegations and material prima facie indicate elements of criminality, including misappropriation and related offences. Accordingly, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the Petitioners are at liberty to raise their contentions during trial before the trial Court and the learned trial Judge may appreciate the same and dispose of the matter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:10.03.2026 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.189 of 2026 Dt.10.03.2026 Dinesh