Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/334/2026 of Adithya Global Health Care Private Limited Vs Rudrabhatia Ram Kumar on 23 March 2026
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 334/2026 Between: 1.ADITHYA GLOBAL HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,
APHC010154672026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 334/2026
Between:
1.ADITHYA
GLOBAL
HEALTH
CARE
PRIVATE
LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. MARRAPU
SURESH
NAIDU,S/O
LATE
VENKATA
NAIDU,
AGE
YEARS.REGISTERED OFFICE AT DOOR NO. 18-1-33,0PP. K.G.H.
O.P. GATE, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 002.
2.MARRAPU SURESH NAIDU, S/O LATE VENKATA NAIDU,AGE 45
YEARS.
RESIDING
AT
FLAT
NO.
101,
MAYURA
BEACH
APARTMENTS,DUTCH LAYOUT, NEAR VISAKHA MUSEUM, CHINA
WALTAIR,VISAKHAPATNAM - 530017.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1.RUDRABHATIA
RAM
KUMAR,
S/O
LATE
R.
VENKATA
GOWRISWARA RAMASASTRY, AGE 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT
DOOR
NO.50-96-4/6,4
FLOOR,
VISWATEJA
SAI
NEST,
SEETHAMMADHARA
NORTH
EXTENSION,ABOVE
INDIAN
OVERSEAS BANK, VISAKHAPATNAM-530013.
2.THE
STATE
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH,
REP.
BY
ITS
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH
COURT
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT
AMARAVATHI.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.BANKA NAGESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 334/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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 present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioners/appellants/accused, challenging the
Order
dated 21.01.2026, passed by the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in Crl.M.P.No.2 of 2026 in Crl.A. No.505 of 2025.
2. Heard Sri Banka Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor takes notice on behalf of the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners had filed Crl.M.P. No.2 of 2026 in Crl.A. No.505 of 2025 seeking suspension of the operation of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 23.12.2025, passed by the learned IV Special Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in C.C. No.779 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He would further contend that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, while allowing the said petition, suspended the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court till disposal of the main appeal, i.e., Crl.A. No.505 of 2025, subject to the condition of deposit of 5% of the fine amount, out of the total fine of Rs.10,00,00,000/-, before the trial Court on or before 23.03.2026, failing which the petition shall stand automatically dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, without duly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, imposed the aforesaid condition of deposit of 5% of the fine amount, and therefore, prays that the said condition be set aside.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State would submit that the Court may pass appropriate Orders.
5. Having considered the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has duly taken into consideration the contentions of both parties while passing the impugned order. The Additional District Judge, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and others1, has exercised its discretion judiciously. Though the said judgment contemplates imposition of a condition to deposit 20% of the fine amount, the learned Judge, taking into consideration the medical condition of the petitioner, who was undergoing treatment in the hospital, and upon perusal of the medical record placed on record, has taken a lenient view and directed the petitioners to deposit only 5% of the fine amount.
6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 24.03.2026 SAB 1 2023 INSC 822
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:334/2026 Dt.24.03.2026 SAB