Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/776/2012 of KANDURI UMAR MAHESWARUDU & 3 OTHER Vs TALATAM BHUVANA SRINIVAS & 4 OTHER on 22 December 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. KANDURI UMAR MAHESWARUDU, S/O LATE SUBRAHMANYAM R/O 23-06-23, KOMMUVARI STREET SATYANARAYANAPURAM,
APHC010496162012
IN TH
TUESDAY,TH
TWO
THE HONOURA
CRIMINA
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. KANDURI UMAR M 23-06-23, KOMM VIJAYAWADA-11, K
2. KANDURI KANAKA R/O 23-06-23, KO VIJAYAWADA-11, K
3. KANDURI PRAKAS KOMMUVARI STRE KRISHNA DISTRIC
4. P.BHADRADI SITA R/O 23-06-23, KO VIJAYAWADA-11, K
1. TALATAM BHUVAN KOTILINGALAPET,
2. KALAGA VEERA V 30-20/3-15/1, GEE VIJAYAWADA KRIS
3. THE STATE RE VIJAYAWADA CITY ACT 17 OF 1999
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEM THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAM AL REVISION CASE NO: 776 OF 2012 MAHESWARUDU, S/O LATE SUBRAH MUVARI STREET SATYANARA KRISHNA DISTRICT A DURGA, W/O KANDURI UMA MA OMMUVARI STREET SATYANARA KRISHNA DISTRICT SAM, S/O LATE SUBRAHMANYAM EET SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJ T ARAMA MURTHY, S/O RAMAMUR OMMUVARI STREET SATYANARA KRISHNA DISTRICT ...P AND NA SRINIVAS, S/O LATE SURYA RAO RAJAHMUNDRY E.G.DISTRICT VENKATA SIRISH KUMAR, S/O RA ETHA MANDIRAM STREET CH SHNA DISTRICT EP BY THE COMMISSIONER Y BEING THE COMPETENT AUTHO DESH
MBER MANTA
HMANYAM R/O AYANAPURAM, AHESWARUDU AYANAPURAM, R/O 23-06-23, AYAWADA-11, RTHY SASTRY AYANAPURAM, PETITIONER(S) O R/O 13-2-28, AMABABU R/O HUTTUGUNTA, OF POLICE, RITHY UNDER
4. MALAPAKA SRINIVASULU, S/O LATE SURYA PRAKASAM R/O VANAPALAVARI STREET, MUTYALAMPADU VIJAYAWADA
5. MALAPAKA SRIDEVI, D/O LATE SURYA PRAKASAM R/O VANAPALAVARI STREET, MUTYALAMPADU VIJAYAWADA ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. J V S H SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order :
Smt. Haritha Vunnava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that she has no instructions and no connection with the clients.
2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised an objection on the point of maintainability of the instant Criminal Revision Case.
3. The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against an order dated 07.05.2012 in Crl.M.P.No. 122 of 2011. It appears that learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, (for brevity ‘Special Court’) on the prayer of unofficial Respondents raised an order of attachment, which was passed in pursuance of an interim order in respect of Item No.37 and 38 of Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.205, Home (General-B) Department, dated 07.08.2010.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that learned Special Judge has heard the Petition in terms of provisions under Section 7(3) of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for brevity “APPDFE Act’). He submits that in pursuance to the Section 11 of the APPDFE Act, only Appeal is maintainable against any order passed by a Special Court. The instant proceeding being Criminal Revision filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. I perused the provisions of law of the APPDFE Act. It appears that to crab menace of illegal activities of unscrupulous establishments in the state of Andhra Pradesh, the Legislature Assembly of this State has enacted and published APPDFE Act on 1st July, 1999 to safeguard the interest of innocent depositors. In pursuance of Section 3 of the APPDFE Act, the Special Judge has given power to attach the property of default in respect of depositors. A power was given to the Special Court regarding attachment. The Special Court was also given power to pass an interim order in terms of Section 6 of the APPDFE Act. It appears that learned Court below in pursuance of Section 7 of the APPDFE Act has passed an order under Section 3 of the APPDFE Act, thereby, the interim order of attachment was wearing by release the some portion of attached property.
6. Section 11 of the APPDFE Act is set out hereunder for ready reference:
11. Appeal- Any person including the competent authority, if aggrieved by an order of the Special Court, may appeal to the High Court within thirty days from the date of such order.
7. On perusal of Section 11 of the APPDFE Act, it appears that any person aggrieved by an order of Special Court may file an Appeal before the High Court within specified 30 days. This being an application under Section 227 of the Constitution of India is not an Appeal. Furthermore, this Court has no roster to entertain the Appeal.
8. Considering the situation, I find no jurisdiction to entertain the instant Criminal Revision Case.
9. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is considered and rejected as without jurisdiction.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J
Date: 23.12.2025
KK