Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Baddam Venkatram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Telangana HC
2025
Baddam Venkatram Reddy Vs The State of TelanganaBaddam Venkatram Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Dismissed¶27

Baddam Venkatram Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Jan 2025CRLA/188/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, 20-01-2025, K. Surender J — I.A.No.1 of 2025 in/and CRLA.No.188 of 2025. Condonation of 325-day delay (Section 5, Limitation Act) refused; interlocutory application and criminal appeal (filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 23.12.2018 in CC.No.137 of 2018, Special Magistrate-V, Hyderabad) dismissed for non-service of notice despite the Court's earlier direction to file proof of service. Registry directed to number the appeal in view of 'Sgram Dondiga a. State of Andhra Pradeshl' (citation as printed, OCR-corrupted). Parties: Baddam Venkatram Reddy (appellant/complainant; counsel Chitneni Vidyasagar Rao) v. State of Telangana (Additional Public Prosecutor M Vivekananda Reddy) and Pocharam Thirupathi Reddy (respondent No.2/accused, no counsel listed).

What did the court decide?

No relief to the parties; I.A.No.1 of 2025 and the Criminal Appeal were dismissed, and the Registry was directed to number the appeal.

Why is it important?

I.A.No.1 of 2025 is dismissed on the ground of non-service of notice on the respondent. ¶27

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the parties; I.A.No.1 of 2025 and the Criminal Appeal were dismissed, and the Registry was directed to number the appeal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 325 days in filing the criminal appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (I.A.No.1 of 2025). +1 more

Court's answer

I.A.No.1 of 2025 is dismissed on the ground of non-service of notice on the respondent.

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, the Criminal Appeal (CRLA.No.188 of 2025) is also dismissed.

Key takeaways

In view of the judgment reported in 'Sgram Dondiga a. State of Andhra Pradeshl' (as printed), the Registry is directed to number the appeal.ratio¶28
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

I.A.No.1 of 2025 in/and CRLA.No.188 of 2025 (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, K. Surender, J., 20-01-2025): A complainant's criminal appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. challenged the judgment dated 23.12.2018 in CC.No.137 of 2018 of the Special Magistrate-V, Hyderabad; the accompanying I.A. under Section 5 of the Limitation Act sought condonation of a 325-day delay in filing. An earlier order of the Court had directed the appellant to take out personal notice on the respondent and file proof of service; since neither proof of service nor proof of sending the notice was filed, the I.A. was dismissed on the ground of non-service of notice and, consequently, the Criminal Appeal was also dismissed. In view of the judgment reported in 'Sgram Dondiga a. State of Andhra Pradeshl' (as printed), the Registry was directed to number the appeal, and pending miscellaneous applications were directed to stand dismissed.

A

[³²⁵¹ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY , TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

|.A.NO.1 0F 2025

IN/AND

GRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 188 OF²⁰²⁵

Criminal Appeal filed under Section^{378(4)of Cr.P C., againstth^e Judgment} dated 23t'l2t2O1^{g passedin CC.No.'137 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the} Special Magistrate^{- V, at Hyderabad.}

Between:

Baddam Venkatram Reddv, S/o.Ramchandra^{Reddy, Age 40 yehrs,Occ.} Business, R/o.H.No.6-17, Vivekasnagar^{Colony, BandlagudaJagir, Gandipet} Mandal, Ranga^ReddY District.

...AppeltanUComplainant in^{CRLAand Petitioner/Appellant in l.A.No-1of 2O25}

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep,by^{the Public Prosecutor, at High Court} Buildings. Hyderabad.

Pocharam Thirupathi Reddy,^{Aged about39 years, Occ Business,R/o...} Subhanour Villaire. Mahestiwaram^{Mandal, RR.District- At present residing at} H.No.2-b8, Lillypiur Village,^{H/o. Dubbacherla, Grampanchayat, Maheshwaram} Mandal, Ranga ReddY District.

...RespondenUAccused in^{CRLAand l.A.No'1ot 2O25}

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under section^{5 of Limitation Act, prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition, the High Court may be} pleased to condone the delay of (325) days^{in filing the presentcriminal appeal.}

Counsel for the Appellant :Sri^{Chitneni Vidyasagar Rao}

Counsel for the Respondent^{No'1:Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Additional} Public Prosecutor

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 :} - - -

The Court delivered the^{following: COMMON JUDGMENT}

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUR.END,]}R

I.A.No.1 OF 2o25 IN AND CRIMINAIAPPEAL NO. 188 OF 2025

COMMON JUDGMENT:

This Court, by order, dated O2.O2.2O21, in I.1,.No.1 of 2025, directed the appellant to take out personal notice to -he respondent and file proof of service. TilI date, neither proof of serdce is filed nor proof of sending the notice is filed pursuant to the d irection of this Court.

In the said circumstances, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is dismissed'on the ground of non-service of notice on the respondent. Corrsequently, the Criminal Appeal is a-lso dismissed. In view of the judlSment reported

in Sgram Dondiga a. State of Andhra Pradeshl, t.he Registry is

directed to number the appeal. Miscellaneous applica tions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- M. ITAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGI.STRAR { uB-

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Special Magistrate^- V, at^{Hyderabad(Withrecords,f any)} 2. One CC to-Sri Chitneni^{VidyasagarRao, Advocate} [OPUC.] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the Stat= of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

Two CD Copies

(A-

ADI(gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010112025

COMMON JUDGMENT

I.A.NO.1 0F 2025 IN/AND CRLA.No.188 of 2025

og THE 5 t4
t*
I tJ
ri,-
13 luil 2W
a-_

DISMISSING THE CRLA AND I.A.NO.1 OF 2025
(+
l,<br>J

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the delay of 325 days in filing the criminal appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (I.A.No.1 of 2025).¶18
The court held
I.A.No.1 of 2025 is dismissed on the ground of non-service of notice on the respondent.ratio¶27
2.
Whether, in view of the appellant's failure to serve notice on the respondent and file proof of service as directed by the Court, the I.A. and the Criminal Appeal should be dismissed.¶27
The court held
Consequently, the Criminal Appeal (CRLA.No.188 of 2025) is also dismissed.ratio¶27

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Sgram Dondiga a. State of Andhra PradeshlRelied on¶28
Sgram Dondiga a. State of Andhra Pradeshl

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)378(4)¶9
Limitation Act5¶18

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 23.12.2018 passed in CC.No.137 of 2018 by the Court of the Special Magistrate-V, at Hyderabad, challenged in this Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.¶9
Court of the Special Magistrate-V, at Hyderabad · 2018-12-23
Prior proceeding
By an earlier order in I.A.No.1 of 2025, this Court directed the appellant to take out personal notice to the respondent and file proof of service.¶26
Prior proceeding
As on the date of this judgment, neither proof of service nor proof of sending the notice had been filed pursuant to the Court's direction.¶26
Prior proceeding
I.A.No.1 of 2025 was a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a delay of 325 days in filing the present criminal appeal.¶18

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Baddam Venkatram Reddy¶11
Chitneni Vidyasagar Rao
respondent
State of Telangana¶14
M Vivekananda Reddy
respondent
Pocharam Thirupathi Reddy¶15

Coram

AI extract

K. Surenderauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Telangana HC
Decided on: 20 Jan 2025 · January
Registered: 15 Feb 2025
Case no.: CRLA/188/2025
CNR: HBHC010034662021
Bench: K.surender
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: CRLA

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from K.surender

Sakki Laxmi Vs Gaini Gangamani
10 Jan 2025
K. Viswanath Vs The State of Telangana
10 Jan 2025
Erude Peeraji Vs The State of Telangana
10 Jan 2025
Pintu Kumar Sah Vs the State through Circle Inspector of Police, Adilabad
20 Jan 2025
Jasmeer Singh Saluja Vs The State of Telangana
20 Jan 2025
Malagalla Ramulu, R.R.District Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp, through Ps., Vikarabad
20 Jan 2025

Cite this judgement

Baddam Venkatram Reddy v. The State of Telangana, CRLA/188/2025 (TEL), decided on 20 January 2025.

The High Court for the State of Telangana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

Sgram Dondiga a. State of Andhra PradeshlRelied on¶28

Open Authorities

Statutes2

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)378(4)
Limitation Act5

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Judgment dated 23.12.2018 passed in CC.No.137 of 2018 by the Court of the Special Magistrate-V, at Hyderabad, challenged in this Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.Court of the Special Magistrate-V, at Hyderabad · 2018-12-23
By an earlier order in I.A.No.1 of 2025, this Court directed the appellant to take out personal notice to the respondent and file proof of service.
As on the date of this judgment, neither proof of service nor proof of sending the notice had been filed pursuant to the Court's direction.

View full history

Bench / Coram

K. Surender

Parties & counsel