Dismissed¶30

Gunji Venkataramanaiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Oct 2025CRLRC/2339/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APHC Amaravati; Criminal Revision Case No.2339 of 2015; dismissed as infructuous; revision against interlocutory order does not survive after disposal/finality of main case; acquittal of accused on 01.10.2018 in C.C.No.153 of 2013; discharge petition under s.239 Cr.P.C.; FSS Act 2006 s.59(1); Food Safety and Standards (Food Products & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011; II Addl. JMFC Gudur, SPSR Nellore; interim orders vacated; miscellaneous petitions closed; T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.; 15.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

None substantive; Criminal Revision Case dismissed as infructuous, interim orders vacated and pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶30

Gunji Venkataramanaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

APHC010672572015

[3369]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO T H OUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2339/2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

GUNJI VENKATARA M ANAIAH, S/O GURAVIAH, AGED 4 0 YEARS, OCC: CAUSAL LAB O RER, MANABOLU VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AN D HRA PRADESH, through Food Saf e ty Officer, S.P.S.R.Nellore District Rep., by Public Prosecutor, Hig h Court at Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t hat in the circumstances stated in th e affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may b e pleased to submit this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case being agg r ieved by the order dated 02.09.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.558 of 2015 in C .C.No.153 of 2013 on the file of the A d dl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 3629 OF 2015

¶17

Petition under Sectio n 151 CPC praying that in the circumsta n ces stated in the affidavit filed in supp o rt of the petition, the High Court may b e pleased to stay of all further proce e dings including appearance of the p etitioner in C.C.No.153 of 2013 on th e file of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of Crl.R.C., and to p ass

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

¶20

1.P NARAHARI BABU

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶22

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶24

1. The present Criminal Revision Case, filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is preferred on behalf of the petitioner/accused challenging the order dated 02.09.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.558 of 2015 in Calendar Case No.153 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). By the said order, the Trial Court dismissed the petition filed under section 239 of Cr.P.C., in discharging the accused for the alleged contravention of section 3(1) (zz) (VII) 26(2), (I) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (Food Products & Food Additives) regulations, 2011 punishable under section 59(1) of FSS Act, 2006.

¶25

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner / accused.

¶26

3. Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent / State, contends that as per E-courts report, Calendar Case No.153 of 2013, wherein the order dated 02.09.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.558 of 2015 was passed, was finally disposed of by the Trial Court, resulting in the acquittal of the accused on 01.10.2018. He further contends that, in view of the dismissal of the main case, the present Criminal Revision directed against the said interlocutory order no longer survives for independent adjudication and has, therefore, become infructuous.

¶27

4. This Court, upon a careful consideration of the submission advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and having regard to the fact that the very Calendar Case in which the impugned order was passed already stands disposed, is of the considered view that nothing further remains for determination in the present Revision Case. Since the main case has been

¶28

¶29

concluded and has attained finality, any challenge to an interlocutory order passed therein has lost its relevance, and adjudicating the present Criminal Revision Case would serve no useful purpose.

¶30

5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous .

¶31

Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶32

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J

¶33

Date: 15.10.2025 S A K

¶34

¶35

223

¶36