Telangana High Court
Shetty Amarender vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.867 of 2024
DATE:25.03.2026
BETWEEN:
Shetty Amarender & two others
.....Revision Petitioners/Accused
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep., by Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad & another
.....Respondents
: ORDER :
This Criminal Revision case is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.07.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.1 of 2024 by the Principal Sessions Judge at Narayanpet.
2
2. Heard Sri B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri K.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that the first appellate Court erred in setting aside the acquittal order passed by the trial Court in C.C. No.963 of 2022 and remanding the matter for fresh trial on the ground that no opportunity was given to the witnesses. It is submitted that the appellate Court failed to give due weight to the material available on record. The trial Court, after granting sufficient opportunities for several years, rightly closed the prosecution evidence. The case was pending for trial since 20.09.2016 and despite granting time for nearly five years, the prosecuting agency failed to produce any witnesses, as a result of which the prosecution evidence was closed on 29.01.2021. Even thereafter, the learned Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to reopen the case and recall the witnesses, which was allowed on the same day, but still no witnesses were produced on the subsequent hearing dates. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was finally closed on 3 20.03.2023 and the matter was posted for arguments on 07.06.2023. On that day also, the learned Public Prosecutor remained absent and did not take any steps for recalling the witnesses. Consequently, the case was posted for pronouncement of judgment on 19.06.2023 and during that period also the prosecution did not take any steps to reopen the case. It is further contended that the defacto complainant was well aware of the hearing dates as he was regularly attending the Court in a connected case in C.C.No.217 of 2022, and therefore the contention that the witnesses were not informed of the hearing dates is not correct. As the matter pertains to the year 2015 and the trial Court, after granting sufficient opportunities, delivered its judgment in 2023, there is no error in the judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, the first appellate Court erred in remanding the matter and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the docket order dated 19.04.2016 in C.C. No.61 of 2015 shows that A.1 to A.3 were present before the Court. It is further submitted that the docket order dated 16.03.2021 reveals that LWs.1 to 5 were present and were identified by the police of Kosgi Police Station. On that day, the learned Public 4 Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking reopening of the case and recalling of the witnesses by issuing summons, which was allowed and LWs.1 to 5 were bound over till 17.03.2021 for recording their evidence. On 17.03.2021 also A.1 to A.3 and LWs.1 to 5 were present, but since a criminal case filed by the accused against the witnesses in C.C. No.597 of 2016 was pending and there was a possibility of amicable settlement, time was sought for settlement. Accordingly, at the request of the defence counsel, the Court bound over LWs.1 to 5 till 10.04.2021 on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to each witness. Subsequently, when the case was coming up before the JFCM Court, Kodangal, it was transferred to the Court of I Additional JFCM, Kodangal, which issued summons to the witnesses with a conditional order that if the prosecution failed to produce them, the prosecution evidence would be closed. Later, after establishment of the new JFCM Court at Kosgi, the case was again transferred and renumbered as C.C. No.963 of 2022. Due to these transfers between different Courts, there was confusion regarding the witnesses and the case was adjourned from time to time for want of service of summons. Ultimately, since the witnesses could not be examined, the trial Court closed the prosecution evidence and pronounced judgment. Therefore, the first appellate Court rightly remanded the matter to the trial 5 Court to afford an opportunity to record the evidence of the witnesses, and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.2, and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the case was initially registered as C.C. No.61 of 2015 and subsequently transferred between different Courts and finally renumbered as C.C. No.963 of 2022 after establishment of the new Court at Kosgi. The record further discloses that LWs.1 to 5 were present before the Court on certain occasions and were also identified by the police. The learned Public Prosecutor had filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to reopen the case and recall the witnesses, which was allowed by the trial Court. However, due to subsequent transfers of the case between different Courts and difficulties in securing the presence of witnesses, their evidence could not be recorded. The trial Court ultimately closed the prosecution evidence and pronounced the judgment of acquittal. In the considered view of this Court, the appellate Court, after examining the circumstances of the case and the docket proceedings, rightly observed that sufficient opportunity ought 6 to be given to the prosecution to examine the material witnesses before deciding the case on merits. The appellate Court therefore remanded the matter to the trial Court for the limited purpose of recording the evidence of the witnesses.
6. This Court finds that the order passed by the appellate Court is only to ensure that both parties are given a fair opportunity and that the case is decided on merits after recording the evidence of the witnesses. The remand order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the appellate Court.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment passed by the appellate Court. The trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :25.03.2026 Rds 7 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.867 OF 2024 DATE : 25.03.2026 Rds