Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/596/2017 of NELAM SATYAVATHI, EAST GODAVARI., Vs VALLABADASU DURGA PRASAD RAO, EG.DT &ANR, REP PP., on 30 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 596/2017 Between: 1. NALAM SATYAVATHI, EAST GODAVARI.,, W/O NALAM SRINIVAS, HINDU
APHC010161472017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
Between:
1. NALAM SATYAVATHI, EAST GODAVARI.,, W/O NALAM SRINIVAS, HINDU VYSYAS,AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 2-186, TARAKARARAMCOLONY, INDRAPALEM, KAKINADA RURAL,EAST
GODAVARI.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. VALLABADASU DURGA PRASAD RAO EG DT ANR REP PP, S/O.
GOPAL KRISHNA, HINDU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O D.NO.59- 16-3/2, PONNAMANDAVARI
STREET,
MAIN
ROAD
JAGANNAICKPUR, KAKINADA,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
2. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT AT 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 toto set aside the judgment passed by the learned IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada in C.C.No. 321
of 2014, dated 24.7.2015, as well as the confirmation Judgment dated 22.11.2016 in CrI.A.No.413 of 2015, on the file of the learned IV Addl.
Sessions Judge, East Godavari Kakinada and consequently allow the complaint in CC No. 321 of 2014 filed by the complainant and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAJU GUBBALA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
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:
Inspite of the matter is being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, none appears on behalf of the petitioner.
2. The instant criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed against the judgment dated 22.11.2016, passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada in Crl.A.No.413 of 2015, whereby the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment dated 24.07.2015 passed by the learned IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada in C.C.No.321 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the accused is acquitted.
3. The instant revision case was admitted on 08.03.2017 and a notice was issued to the 1st respondent. The defacto complainant has preferred the instant revision case. It appears from the proceeding sheet, since filing of the Revision Case, the de facto complainant / petitioner did not turn up. Five times, this matter was listed before this Court. There is no representation on behalf of both the parties.
4. I have carefully examined the order impugned in the revision.
5. On careful observation of the findings, it appears that learned trial court has acquitted the petitioner.
6. On a careful perusal of the observation of the learned trail court, it appears that the trial court has specifically decided the grounds of the revision case as mentioned by the petitioner, he has also decided on the point for determination. I find no illegality and impropriety in the order itself.
7. In view of the fact that the parties have shown no inclination to prosecute the matter further and finding no illegality or impropriety in the order of the trial Court and learned Appellate Court, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merit
8. Under the above observation, the instant criminal revision case is dismissed as devoid of merit. Since the petitioner is not present before this Court, let a copy of this order be served upon the learned trial Court, for ready reference.
As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J
Date: 01.05.2026 KA
Date: 01.05.2026 KA