Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/230/2026 of AMITH SAMPATH PALI @ CHIKIYA @ BHAVYA Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 2 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A No.2 of 2026 in/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 230/2026 Between: 1. AMITH SAMPATH PALI @
APHC010054582026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3396]
TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
I.A No.2 of 2026
in/and
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 230/2026
Between:
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.
1. AMITH SAMPATH PALI @ CHIKIYA @ BHAVYA, , S/O SAMPATH VITOBHA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RIO BACK SIDE OF BIRUPA DEVI MANDIR, KURLI VILLAGE, KHANAPUR MANDAL, SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASTRA.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SHO, TANUKU TOWN POLICE STATION, REP. BY SDPO, TADEPALLIGUDEM, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ARNARAVATI.
2. DEVKAR NAMDEV, S/O GURUNADH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RENUKA JEWELERS, VANGURI VANI VEEDHI, TANUKU, NATIVE OF VEJGAV VILLAGE, VITA MANDAL, SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASTRA, NOW R/O HOUSE BEARING D.NO.19-2-25, VANGURI VANI VEEDHI, TANUKU.
...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to allow the Revision Petition by setting aside the order dt.14-02-2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.22/2024 in Cr.No.197/2018 on the file of Hon'ble II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku by dismissing the said petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Pleased to condone the delay of 12 days in re-presenting the returned Revision and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 pleased to condone the delay of 614 days in filing the Revision and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2026 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 pleased to STAY the operation of the order dt.14-02-2024 passed in CrI.M.P.No.22/2024 in Cr.No.197/2023 on the file of Hon'ble II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku till disposal of this Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A No.2 of 2026 in/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 230/2026 The Court made the following Common Order:
The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 14.02.2024 passed in Crl.M.P No.22 of 2024 in Crime No.197 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum – II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku.
2. I.A.No.2 of 2026 is filed by the Petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 614 days in filing the above Criminal Revision Case.
3. Heard Sri A.Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that order passed by the learned Trial Court is unsustainable. Taking advantage of substantial quantum of gold involved, the petitioner is attempting to take possession of the same. If such an attempt succeeds, the Petitioner would suffer serious and irreparable loss, and the entire proceedings would be rendered prejudicial to his interests. Learned counsel finally prays that a direction may be given to keep the said gold in the custody of Court until the final adjudication of the matter.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is justified and well founded and needs no interference of this Court.
6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, the petitioner seeks condonation of a delay of 614 days in filing the present Criminal Revision Case. However, except making general averments, no material has been placed before this Court explaining the inordinate delay on a day-to-day basis. This Court does not find any reason to condone the delay of 614 days in filing the revision case. The order passed by the learned Trial Judge is a well reasoned one. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are no tenable grounds to interfere in the said order.
7. Accordingly, I.A. No.2 of 2026 is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the Police are directed to investigate into the matter and file charge-sheet as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (03) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:03.03.2026 Ksj