APHC010690172022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1173/2022 Between: 1. GUDALA LOVALAKSHMI, W/O RAMANABABU @ BUJJI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDI.NG AT CHOWDUWADA VILLAGE, KOTAURATLA MANDAL,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. MARTHI RAMANABABU BUJJI, S/O NARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHOWDUWADA VILLAGE, KOTAURATLA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P AT AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3. LEGAL AID The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1173 of 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C./ Sections 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’),, has been filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant challenging the order, dated 31.12.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.118 of 2020 in Crl.A.No…./2020 (unnumbered) on the file of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. As could be seen from the impugned order, the de facto complainant preferred a Criminal Appeal against the judgment of acquittal in C.C. No.1123 of 2008 with a delay of 450 days. The impugned order further reveals that during the COVID-19 pandemic period, neither the petitioner/de facto complainant nor her learned counsel could appear through virtual mode (Blue Jeans) on 31.12.2020. Consequently, the delay petition filed along with the appeal came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that a fair opportunity may be given to the petitioner to prosecute her petition before the trial Court. It is further submitted that Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, supporting the version of the de facto complainant submits that because of the Covid regime, the learned 3 counsel could not appear through virtual mode and therefore, prays to allow the revision. 5. Having considered the submissions made and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the delay petition in Crl.M.P. No.118 of 2020 in Crl.A. (unnumbered) of 2020 was dismissed solely on the ground of non-appearance of party on 31.12.2020. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the dismissal was because of the non- prosecution during the pandemic period. 6. In that view, in order to afford a fair opportunity to both parties to put forth their respective contentions, it is apposite to set aside the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The Order, dated 31.12.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.118 of 2020 in Crl.A.No…./2020 (unnumbered) on the file of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back the appellant Court for fresh consideration after hearing both sides and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. As both learned counsel appeared before this Court, they are directed to inform their respective parties to appear before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, on 09.03.2026 for further proceedings. 4 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 23.02.2026 Note:- CC by 24.02.2026. (B/o) ARB 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1173/2022 Date: 23.02.2026 ARB CC by 24.02.2026. (B/o) ARB