Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/1684/2008 of DONTHAMSETTY NANDI MALLIKARJUNA RAO @ MALLI BABU & ANOTHER Vs THE STATE OF A.P. on 29 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1684/2008 Between: 1. DONTHAMSETTY NANDI MALLIKARJUNA RAO @ MALLI BABU
APHC010452802008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1684/2008
Between:
1. DONTHAMSETTY NANDI MALLIKARJUNA RAO @ MALLI BABU &
ANOTHER, S/O VEERRAJU, R/O GOWRI DEVI TEMPLE STREET, VEERA VARAPUPETA, TUNI, E.G.DIST.
2. KORUKONDA RAM BABU @ KRISHNA,, S/O SAMBA MURTHY, R/O
KOTHAPETA, OPP: TAGUR CONVENT, TUNI, E.G.DIST.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., filed against the Order passed in Crl.R.P.No.89 of 2007 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kakinada, E.G.Dist., dated 09.09.08.
IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 2315 OF 2008
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 stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in
C.C.No.416/2001 on the file of the IV Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, E.G.Dist., pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.
IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 756 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 implead the Commercial Tax Officer, Kakinada, E.G.Dist., as respondent No.2
in Crl.R.C.No.1684 of 2008 and Crl.R.C.M.P.No. 2315 of 2008 pending before this Hon'ble Court.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. T S ANIRUDH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1684 OF 2008
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:
1. Since filing of present Criminal Revision Case, the petitioner did not turn up. The matter is pending since 2008. Considering the long pendency of the matter, this Court has proceeded to hear the criminal revision case on merit on 01.04.2026. Today, the case is taken up under the caption “for dismissal”. None appears for the petitioners. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was heard.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as A.4 and A.5 in C.C. No.416 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada.
3. This criminal revision case was preferred against the order dt.09.09.2008 passed by learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada, in Crl.R.P.No.89 of 2007 whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Crl.M.P.No.2079 of 2007 in C.C. No.416 of 2001 which was filed by the petitioners/A.4 & A.5 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. by allowing the revision petition preferred by the State.
4. I have gone through the observation of the learned Sessions Judge. On a careful perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned Sessions Judge has scanned the material on record and held that the petitioners (A.4 & A.5) are not entitled to be discharged and their participation in the trial would certainly help the prosecution to trace out the persons from whom the way bills came into possession of the A.4 & A.5 reasons thereby, allowed the revision petition. After perusal of the entire order, it appears to me that the learned trial court has properly scanned the material on record. There are no illegality or impropriety in the order of the learned Sessions Judge.
5. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
6. Pending miscellaneous petitions(s), if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.30.04.2026 BV