IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO : 1857 of 2009 (Criminal Revision case under Section:_______ against the Judgment in NO : dated ______ on the file of the Court of the Aggrieved by the order in CRl.M.P.No. 1437/2009 in CC.No. 20/2007 dated 14.10.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur, this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case, preferred against the order in CC 20 2007 dated 14/10/2009 on the file of the Court of the ) Between: K.Arogyam, S/o. Madanna, R/o. Talamudipi Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mallu Nageswara Reddy, S/o. M. Nagi Reddy, R/o. Talamudipi Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District. 2 Mulla Siva Reddy, S/o. Nageswara Reddy, R/o. Talamudipi Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District. 3 P.Naravana Reddy, S/o. Bali Redy, R/o. Talamudipi Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District. 4 Syed Valli Molla Basha, S/o. Mabusaheb R/o. Talamudipi Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District. 5 Dayyala Sreenu, S/o. Balanna, R/o. Talamudipi Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District. 6 Madiga Yohanu, S/o. Buddanna, R/o. Talamudipi Village, Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District. 7 The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.RAMANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following : PSR, J. Crl.R.C.No. 1857 of 2009 Judgment: This revision case is filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur in Crl.M.P.No. 1437 of 2009 in C.C.No. 20 of 2007, a petition filed by the de facto complainant for taking cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 364, 324, 326 and 324 read with 34 IPC and S. 3 (i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989, against the accused. 2. The learned Magistrate after elaborate discussion found that there is no material for taking cognizance of the above offences, against the accused, on account of the delay. The accused have been prosecuted for the other offences under sections 323 and 506 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not get to my notice any serious irregularity in the impugned order. There are no merits in the revision case. 3. Accordingly, the revision case is dismissed. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated: 10—03—2010. *BVS