Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010428782019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1314/2019 Between: 1. DUMPALA PRAVEEN,, S/O APPARAO, AGED 19 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, R/O GANAPAVARAM VILLAGE 86 MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KONDREDDI SRINIVASA RAO SRINU, S/O SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O NARAYANAPURAM, UNGUTUR MANDAL,( WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: No representation for the Petitioner. The case of the year 2019 one of the oldest cases on the file of this Court. 2. Ms. Sanaka Manaswi, learned counsel, is appointed as learned legal aid counsel for Petitioner in this case. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, is directed to issue necessary proceedings in this regard. 3. Heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging the order dated 05.10.2019 passed in Crl.M.P. No.558 of 2019 in Crl.A.SR No.4171 of 2019 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, whereby the application filed by the Petitioner/Appellant under Section 127 of the Criminal Rules of Practice was dismissed. The Respondent No.1 was acquitted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, in S.C. No.1 of 2018, by judgment dated 28.01.2019, of the charge under Section 307 of ‘the I.P.C’. 5. Ms. Manaswi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the grounds raised in the revision, submits that the learned Appellate Court erred in dismissing the application, as the Petitioner was only 19 years of age and illiterate and urged to allow the revision case. 6. Mr. A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and that no 3 miscarriage of justice has occurred. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision. 7. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the Petitioner failed to show any sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge rightly dismissed the application. 8. As seen from the record, there was a delay of 66 days in preferring the appeal by the de facto complainant before the learned Appellate Court. No satisfactory explanation was offered for the said delay. The learned Sessions Judge observed that a litigant is expected to be vigilant and cannot afford to be negligent in pursuing legal remedies. Though it is not necessary to explain every day's delay, the applicant must at least establish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 127 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, as the Petitioner failed to show, much less establish, any sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 14.07.2026 KMS Whether the order is : [ Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 4 108 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1314/2019 Date: 14.07.2026 KMS