Chandra Ranga Rao, v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-30. Chandra Ranga Rao, v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITI ON NO: 6791 OF 2026 Between: Chandra Ranga Rao, Sio. Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 51 years, Occ Business, R/o. Flat Nc 504, Sree Nilayam Enclave, M. No. 8-3-945, f. Beside New Science Collage, I Hyderabad, Telangana f. meerpet, ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED/APPELLANT AND 1. The State of Telangan Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High F, Court for the State of Telangana, Hy<Ierabad 2 Chandra Koteswara Ri po, S/o. Late Sri Ch. Punnaiah, R/o. Flat No. 102, B. K. Enclave, A. S. Raju Nagar, MNR College Raod, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 52 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated l8 in the Memorandum of Grounds r pf Criminal Petition, ttre High Court may be pleased to call for the record relating to th proceedings in Criminal Appeal No.
751 of 2016 on le the file of the Hon'ble ll Add District and Sessions Judge-cum-l Additional [tional Family Court, Medchal, and q the Docket Order dated 30. 03. 2026, as being luash illegal, arbitrary and unconstituliional LA. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 52p of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds c Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased if to grant stay of all further proceed in Crimir,al Appeal No. 751 of 20'16 on the file lings of Hon'ble ll Additional District z Sessions Judge-cum-l Additional Family fnd Court, Medchal, pending disposal of tt le above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition e upon hearing lnd the arguments of Mr. Md. Nawaz Hyder Ali, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veermalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf o1 'the Respondent No. 1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2.
The Court made the following : ORDER IN THE HIGH COLTRT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6791 of 2026 Date:30. 04. 2026 Between: Chandra Ranga Rao ... Petitioner/accused AND 'I'he 'Ielangana, State of and another ... Respondents ORDER 'lhis Criminal Iretition has been filed by the petitioner/accused aggrieved by rhe docket order dated 30. 03. 2026 in Crl. A. No. 75l of 20 16, passed by the lcarned II Additionat District and Sessions Judge- ,the cum-l Additional Farnily Court, Medchal (for short Sessions Court'). 2. Heard Mr. Md. Nawaz Hyder Ali, leamed counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I . 3. Notice in respect of respondent No. 2 is dispensed with on the ground that the petitioner is not seeking any relief against respondent No. 2, as he was arrayed only as a proforma respondent. . \ \: r. - 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in C. C. No. 43 of 2016 on the file of the Special Magistrate Court No. IV, Kukarpally, at Miyapur (for short 'the trial Court'). The trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused on 03. 09. 2016 for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, (for short 'NI Act,). Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed an appeal vide Crl. A. No. 75l of 2016 before the Sessions Court. Due to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner was not appeared on 09. 03. 2026, however, the Sessions Court treated the arguments of petitioner as heard and posted the matter to 30. 03. 2026 for judgment. On 30. 03. 2026, leamed Sessions Court directed the parties to file a copy of the order passed by the High Court and posted the matter to 24. 04. 2026.
He further submitted that the Sessions Court, without giving an opportunity of hearing much less a reasonable opportunity of hearing, treated the arguments of petitioner as heard and the same is a gross violation of the due process of law. The appeal has to be adjudicated as original proceedings. 5. Per contra,leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that tJ. re petitioner is entitled to approach the very sa-me Court to file an etr . / such application seeking to reopen the appeal and without availing has straightaway remedies before the Sessions Court, the petitioner the present approached this Cotrrl and filed criminal petition' made by the 6. Having considered the rival submissions of the material available on record respective parties and upon perusal it reveals that the petitioner was convicted by the triat Court on 03. 09. 2016inC'C'No. 43of20i6fortheoffencesunderSectionsl38 and 142.
of the NI Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and also to pay Rs 50,00,000/-to respondent No. 2. In default, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal vide Crl'A'No'751 of 2016 belore the Sessions Court. On 09. 03. 2026 the petitioner was \ I absent due to unavoidable circumstances, however, the Sessions Court treated the arguments of petitioner as heard and after hearing the arguments of respondent No. 2, posted the matter to 30'03'2026 for judgment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, due petitioner nor the counsel to unavoidable circumstances, neither the for the petitioner were present before the Sessions Court on 09. 03. 2026 and the mattet before the Sessions Court was posted to \ \l -rI d 07. 05. 2026.
Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to approach the Sessions Court seeking to reopen the matter, for submission of his arguments. 7. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances ol the case, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an application before the learned Sessions Court seeking to reopen the case and for gfant of an opportunity of hearing to him, within a period of one (l) wcek from today and on application, the leamed Sessions Court is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. 8. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed oL Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shatt stand closed SDI. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, itional FamilY Court' Sessions Judge-cum-l 1 The ll Additional District and Medchal Ali' [oPlJCl CE t" Mr. Md. Nawaz Hyder Ad^vocate z. ii. " at proJecr'it*, iign Court for the State of Telangana' to Puolic 3. Two CCs Hyderabad [OUT] 4.
Two CD CoPies KAM/KA HIGH COURT DATED: 301041202G STr'. 1 H E fF ? il2t (;) { lt\[\ ORDER t * CRLP. No. 6791 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMII{AL PETITION @iln
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.