APHC010266282020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 368/2020 Between: 1. SHAIK ABDUL NABI,, S/0. S.ABBAS MIAH, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RIO. H.NO.91/192-9-1, MADHAVI NAGAR, V.R.COLONY, 5TH ROAD, KURNOOL. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UMAR DARAJ KHAN, S/O.. LATE DAYIM KHAN, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RIO. H.NO.1-178-3, KHADAPUR, OLD TOWN, KURNOOL. 2. SATTAR KHAN, S/O. LATE DAHIIN KHAN, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, H.NO.3/152, B.THANDRAPADU, KURNOOL, 3. SUBHAN KHATOON, W/O. LATE RAWOOF KHAN, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RIO. H.NO.3I156, B.THANDRAPADU, KURNOOL. 4. MOHAMMAD ALI KHAN, S/O. LATE DAYIM KHAN, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RIO. H.NO.1 -178-3A, KHADAPUR, OLD TOWN, KURNOOL. 5. WAZEER ALI KHAN, S/O. LATE DAYIM KHAN, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RIO. H.NO.1-179-3-1, KHADAPUR, OLD TOWN, KURNOOL. 6. BIBI KHATOON, W/O. LATE MAHABOOB KHAN, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.1-1783-1E1, KHADAPUR, OLD TOWN, KURNOOL. 2 7. RAHAMAT KHATOON, W/O. ARSHAD HUSSAIN, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RIO. H.NO.3/159, B.THANDRAPADU, KURNOOL. 8. AMEER ALL KHAN, S/O. LATE LATE DAYIM KHAN, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RIO. H.NO.1-178-I A, KHADAPUR, OLD TOWN, KURNOOL. 9. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P AT AMARAVATHI, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALUK POLICE STATION, KURNOOL. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L J VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PATHI SIVA PRASAD 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging the order dated 02.09.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.900 of 2019 in Crl.A.No. of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool, whereby and whereunder an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 791 days in preferring an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’), was dismissed. 2. Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the grounds urged in the Revision Case, submits that the de-facto complainant/Petitioner lodged a report with the Station House Officer, Kurnool 3 Taluka Police Station, which was registered as Crime No.110 of 2014 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of ‘the I.P.C’. The Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluka Police Station, conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet. The learned Trial Court, however, erroneously acquitted the Accused. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Trial Court, the de-facto complainant/Petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge with a delay of 791 days. The learned Sessions Judge, without properly appreciating the reasons shown by the Petitioner, erroneously dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay. The delay of 791 days in preferring the appeal occurred on account of the demise of the Counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner had already suffered a huge loss of Rs.20,00,000/- at the hands of the Accused. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the right of appeal is a substantive right conferred by the statute in favour of the Petitioner and is a continuation of the original proceedings. The learned Appellate Court erroneously dismissed the application. Hence, he urges this Court to set aside the impugned order and allow the Criminal Revision Case in the interest of justice. 3. Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and Respondent Nos.1 to 8, in unison, submit that the nature of the transaction entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1/Accused No.1 is purely civil in nature. If Accused No.1 had not honoured the agreement of sale purportedly entered into between the Petitioner and Accused No.1, the Petitioner ought to 4 have filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. The remedy invoked by the Petitioner is not recognized under law. Hence, there being no merits in the case, the learned Trial Court rightly dismissed the Calendar Case. Challenging the said judgment, the Petitioner preferred an appeal with a delay of 791 days. The said delay was not properly explained. Therefore, the learned Appellate Court rightly dismissed the application. There are no merits in the Revision Case and, hence, they urge this Court to dismiss the same. 4 Admittedly, there is a delay of 791 days in preferring the appeal. The reason assigned by the Petitioner for the delay is that the Counsel for the Petitioner had expired. The delay is not an ordinary one; rather, it is an abnormal delay of more than two years. Even if the Counsel for the Petitioner had expired, the Petitioner could have engaged another Counsel and filed the appeal within the prescribed period. That apart, the Petitioner could have approached the learned Public Prosecutor of the District Court for preferring the appeal. The Petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the matter. 5. The learned Appellate Court has rightly observed that any reasonable effort on the part of the Petitioner would have enabled him to avoid the delay, as the Petitioner had failed to show sufficient cause. The learned Appellate Court, therefore, rightly dismissed the interlocutory application. There are no sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 791 days. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. 5 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 03.09.2026 KMS 6 237 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:368 of 2020 Date:03.09.2026 KMS