CRLRC/250/2026 of ANNAPUREDDY SATYAVANI Vs POLAVARAPU SARALA DEVI on 5 March 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT:-

The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 & 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) challenging the Order, dated 27.11.2025 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in Crl.M.P.No.1141 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.467 of 2025.

2. I.A.No.1 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 5 days in filing the above Criminal Revision Case.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C. No. 50 of 2024 on the file of III Special Magistrate, Vijayawada (old C.C. No. 6481 of 2023 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada). He preferred Crl.A. No. 467 of 2025 against the judgment of conviction dated 04.11.2025 passed in C.C. No. 50 of 2024 on the file of III Special Magistrate, Vijayawada. In the said appeal, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 1141 of 2025 in Crl.A. No. 467 of 2025, seeking suspension of the execution of the sentence passed by the III Special Magistrate, Vijayawada in C.C. No. 50 of 2024 (old C.C. No. 6481 of 2023) dated 04.11.2025, and for enlargement on bail. The same was allowed by suspending the impugned order passed by the learned III Special Magistrate, Vijayawada in C.C. No. 50 of 2024, subject to the condition that the petitioner/accused shall deposit 10% of the compensation amount before the Trial Court within a period of two months from the date of the said order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Judge directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the compensation amount is erroneous, contrary to law, and against the probabilities of the case. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Judge failed to properly appreciate the material available on record and prematurely imposed the condition of depositing 10% of the compensation amount. The learned counsel further submits that the delay in filing the present revision was neither willful nor wanton, but due to bonafide reasons, and therefore, the delay of five days deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Judge is a well-reasoned and considered one, based on proper appreciation of the material available on record, and therefore does not warrant any interference by this Court. She would further submit that no sufficient reasons have been shown to condone the inordinate delay of 05 days in filing the revision and, on that ground alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Judge has rightly ordered to deposit of 10% of the compensation amount by the petitioner/appellant, since the appeal is against the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/appellant by the learned trial Court. There are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the order of the learned Appellate Court, as the impugned order is well-reasoned from any angle. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are no tenable grounds to interfere in the said order. This Court does not find any reason to condone the delay of 05 days in filing the revision case.

8. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2026 is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also dismissed.

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this

Judgment.

___________________________________

DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 06.03.2026 S D P

In/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 250/2026 06.03.2026

W

S D P