[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
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. 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
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
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
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
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
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.867 OF 2024
DATE : 25.03.2026
Rds
