Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/392/2009 of K.PARTHASARADHI Vs CHITTIBOMMA VENKATA DASU & 3 OTHERS on 4 May 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 392/2009 Between: 1. K.PARTHASARADHI, S/O K.NARAYANA MURTHY, R/O PATHAPADU
APHC010257982009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 392/2009
Between:
1. K.PARTHASARADHI, S/O K.NARAYANA MURTHY, R/O PATHAPADU
VILLAGE, NUNNA RURAL MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. CHITTIBOMMA VENKATA DASU 3 OTHERS, S/O RAMAIAH, SUB- TREASURY OFFICER O/O THE SUB-TREASURY OFFICE, ELURU, W.G.DIST. R/O D.NO.15-551-14-2-A, P.R.COLONY, EDEPALLY,
2. CHITTIBOMMA VENKATA MAHALAKSHMI, W/O VENKATA DASU, R/O
D.NO.15-551-14-2-A,
P.R.COLONY,
EDEPALLY,
MACHILIPATNAM,
3. CH V V RAMA RAJU, S/O VENKATA DASU, R/O D.NO.15-551-14-2-A, P.R.COLONY, EDEPALLY, MACHILIPATNAM,
4. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Crl.R.C., against the Judgment dated 20.02.09 passed in Crl.A.No.168 of 2008 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist., as confirmed in
C.C.No.145 of 2005 on the file of the I Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist., dated 02.09.08.
IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 542 OF 2009
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix an early date of hearing of the above Crl.R.C., filed against the Judgment dated 20.02.09 passed in Crl.A.No.168 of 2008 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist., as confirmed in C.C.No.145 of 2005 on the file of the I Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist., dated 02.09.08.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. BABU RAO PANDIRI
2. KASI VIJAY KIRAN
3. LEGAL AID
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 392/2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order of the learned Appellate Court in Crl. A. No. 168 of 2008, Where in and where under, the learned Appellate Court has set aside the order of learned I Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in C.C. No. 145 of 2005. The learned I Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada had found Accused Nos. 1 to 3 guilty of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, “I.P.C.”). The said order of conviction was not challenged before the learned Appellate Court. However, the learned Appellate Court, after examining the evidence, found that the order of conviction recorded against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 was baseless and accordingly set aside the same. Aggrieved by such order, the de facto complainant has filed the instant Criminal Revision Case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the order passed by the learned Appellate Court. It appears that a private complaint was placed before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, in which three (03) witnesses, including the complainant, were examined. Several documents were marked as Exs. P1 to P11.
3. On scanning the evidence, the learned Appellate Court was of the view that the offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. was not made out. It appears that the learned Appellate Court found contradictions in the evidence of PW.3 with PW.1 and PW.2, and such contradictions were considered to be fatal to the prosecution case.
4. On the basis of these contradictions, the learned Appellate Court opined that there are reasonable doubt as to whether the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C.
5. On a plain perusal of the impugned order of the learned Appellate Court, I find no illegality or impropriety therein. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed and disposed of.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Dated:05.05.2026. SSA