Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/1643/2008 of Boyineni Jayalakshmi, Vs Sanku Yedukondalu on 7 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1643/2008 Between: 1. BOYINENI JAYALAKSHMI,, W/O. JAYA SANKAR D.NO.
APHC010151492008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1643/2008
Between:
1. BOYINENI JAYALAKSHMI,, W/O. JAYA SANKAR D.NO. 9-204/2, INDIRA COLONY, DOWLAISWARAM, E.G. DIST.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. SANKU YEDUKONDALU, W/O. CHINA PULLA RAO BUVVANAPALLI, GANAPAVARAM MANDAL, W.G. DIST
2. SANKU HIMA BINDU, W/O. YEDUKONDALU BUVVANAPALLI, GANAPAVARAM MANDAL, W.G. DIST
3. SANKU
CHINA
PULLA
RAO,
S/O.
SATYANARAYANA
BUVVANAPALLI, GANAPAVARAM MANDAL, W.G. DIST
4. SANKU
GANGAMMA
GANGARATNAM,
W/O.
PULLA
RAO
BUVVANAPALLI, GANAPAVARAM MANDAL, W.G. DIST
5. GAJULA VENUGOPALA SATYANARAYANA SATYANARAYANA, S/O.
GANGANNA BUVVANAPALLI, GANAPAVARAM MANDAL, W.G. DIST
6. GAJULA VEERA VENKATA SATYA SEETHA DEVI SATYAVATHI, W/O.
SATYANARAYANA
BUVVANAPALLI,
GANAPAVARAM
MANDAL, W.G. DIST
7. SRIRAMUJLU
SRINIVASA
RAO,
S/O.
KRISHNA
MURTHY
BHIMAVARAM, E.G. DIST
8. KATIKATALA
BULLITATA,
S/O.
NOT
KNOWN,
V.A.O.
OF
SRIRAMAPURAM R/O. BATLAMAGATUJRU, PENUMATRA MANDAL, W.G. DIST.
9. THE STATE OF A P, REP BY ITS P.P., HIGH CORUT OF A.P., HYDERABAD.
...RESPONDENTS
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to submit this Memorandum of Crl.R.C.
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.08.2008 passed by the VII Addl.
JFCM, Rajahmundry in C.C. No.532 OF 2008
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAMA MOHAN PALANKI
Counsel for the Respondents:
1. T DURGA PRASAD RAO
2. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA
3. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
4. SRIRAM KRISHNA MURTHY
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1643 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. The present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against order of acquittal, dated 22.08.2008, passed by the learned VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, in C.C.No.532 of 2008.
2. 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 17.03.2026. Today, the case is taken up under the caption “for dismissal.” The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was heard.
3. It appears that charges were framed against eight (08) accused persons under Sections 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During trial, prosecution has examined as many as five (05) witnesses and twelve (12) documents were exhibited.
4. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial court has opined that the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 IPC was not made out. I have gone through the observation of the learned trial court. On a careful perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court has scanned the evidence, particularly the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 along with other evidences. It is the opinion of the learned trial court that no investigation was done because no complaint was received by the revenue officer with regard to Ex.P.4.
5. Until and unless a document which is alleged to be forged is sent for expert opinion, the question of forgery does not arise.
6. After perusal of the entire judgment it appears to me that the learned trial court has properly scanned the evidence and discussed the law. There are no illegality or impropriety in the judgment of the learned trial court.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions(s), if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.08.04.2026 BV