Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana,Rep By Pp., vs Papishetty Bhaskar, Nalgonda Dt., on 13 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
I.A.No.1 OF 2017(Crl.A.M.P.No.1861 of 2017) AND I.A.No.2 of
2017(Crl.M.P.No.1862 of 2017)
IN/AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.916 OF 2017
COMMON ORDER:
I.A.No.1 OF 2017(Crl.A.M.P.No.1861 of 2017) AND I.A/No.2 of
2017(Crl.M.P.NO.1862 of 2017)
These two interlocutory applications were filed seeking
condonation of delay of 232 days in presenting the Criminal Appeal
and for grant of leave to present the appeal aggrieved by the Judgment
passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District in C.C.No.109 of 2011 dated
17.06.2016, wherein the respondent/accused acquitted, for the offences
punishable under Section 7(i)(ii), Section 2(ia)(m), 2(ix)(k) of
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, under Section 437-A of Code of
Criminal Procedure.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.916 OF 2017:
This criminal appeal is filed seeking to set aside the order dated
17.06.2016, passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class
at Miryalaguda in C.C.No.109 of 2011.
2 JSR, J
Crl.A_916_2017
2. A Perusal of the record reveals that I.A.No.1 of 2017 came up
for consideration before this Court on 23.08.2017 and this Court issued
notice to respondent and posted to 21.09.2017. Thereafter, I.A.Nos.1
and 2 came for consideration before this Court on 30.11.2017 and this
Court once again issued fresh notice to respondent and posted to
14.12.2017.
3. On 14.12.2017, this Court once again issued notice to
respondent and learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to take
out personal notice to respondent by way of RPAD and file proof of
service and posted after four weeks. As of now the petitioner has not
filed proof of service pursuant to the order dated 14.12.2017. Notice
sent by the Registry not yet returned. The said applications are filed in
the year 2017, till date the petitioner has not taken positive steps to
serve the notice. Hence, this Court is not having any other option
except to enter into the merits of the case to know whether the
petitioner is having any ground to succeed in the appeal.
4. Heard Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor.
3 JSR, J
Crl.A_916_2017
5. After perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned
trial Court, it reveals that trial Court after taking into consideration the
oral and documentary evidence namely PW1 and PW2 and exhibit P1
to P27 and after hearing both the parties passed the judgment and
acquitted the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 7(i)(ii), Section 2(ia)(m), 2(ix)(k) of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act. Learned trial Court has given specific findings that
the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the
respondent/accused beyond the reasonable doubt. This Court even on
merits does not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned
judgment passed by the trial Court. Petitioner has not given any
reasons much less valid reasons for seeking condonation of delay of
232 days in presenting the appeal as per the provisions of Section 5 of
Limitation Act.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any ground to
grant leave to the petitioner by condoning the delay and there are no
grounds to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.06.2016 passed
by the learned trial Court.
4 JSR, J
Crl.A_916_2017
7. Accordingly, both the interlocutory applications and the criminal
appeal are dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal appeal
shall stand closed.
______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 13.11.2025
PSW
