APHC010148072023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 247/2023 Between: 1. DONGA RAVI CHANDRA, S/O NAGA SATYANARAYANA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RIO JYOTHINAGAR, ANTHARVEDI VILLAGE SAKINETIPALLI MANDAL. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. TULA NARESH, S/O SRINIVAS, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O PANCHAYATHI ROAD TADERU VILLAGE, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. KOTTU @ KATTA @ KATLA DHARMA TEJA, S/O NAGESWARA RAO HINDU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O GOLLAVANIPTIPPA VILLAGE / BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. KARRI KIRAN REDDY, S/O RAMA KRISHNA REDDY HINDU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RIO NEAR BY SAIBABA TEMPLE KOMMARA VILLAGE, ATTILI MANDAL. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THROUGH SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, II TOWN POLICE STATION, BHIMAVARAM HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI 2. THORAM VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. T. PRAKASA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.19-191/34, KATARINAGAR, BHIMAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 11.05.2023 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2023 IN CRL.R.C.NO.247 OF 2023. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S SYAMSUNDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 2. TURAGA SAI SURYA The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) has been filed by the Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to set aside the Order dated 06.03.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.479 of 2022 in C.C.No.1156 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and consequently to discharge the Petitioners from the case. 2. Heard Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing the discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. is illegal and passed without proper appreciation of the material on record. Learned counsel would further submit that, at the stage of discharge, the Court is only required to see whether the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case. It is submitted that the prosecution has not filed any material to establish that L.W.1 is the owner of the alleged prawns stock and in the absence of such material, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 379 IPC are not made out. Learned counsel contends that L.W.2 was indebted to Petitioner No.1 and the present case has been falsely lodged only to avoid repayment of the said dues. It is 3 submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to apply proper judicial mind while considering the discharge petition. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order and to discharge the Petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison, would that the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the discharge petition does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. It is contended that, at the stage of considering a petition under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court is only required to examine whether the material placed by the prosecution discloses a prima facie case against the Accused and not to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence. It is further submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses and other material collected during investigation clearly disclose the involvement of the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offence. The question as to whether L.W.1 is the owner of the prawn stock and the defence plea that L.W.2 was indebted to Petitioner No.1 are all disputed questions of fact, which can only be decided during trial after appreciation of evidence. It is, therefore, contended that the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the discharge petition. Hence, the present 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, as rightly put by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, at the stage of a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C., the Court is only required to see whether 4 the material placed by the prosecution discloses a prima facie case and not to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence. The material collected during investigation, including the statements of witnesses, prima facie indicates the involvement of the Petitioners in the alleged offence. The contentions raised by the Petitioners regarding ownership of the prawn stock and the alleged financial dispute are disputed questions of fact, which can only be decided during trial. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity is found in the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the discharge petition. In that view, this Court does not find any merit in the Criminal Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 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 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, without granting any adjournments in a casual way by mere asking. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:05.03.2026 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.247 of 2023 Dt.05.03.2026 Dinesh