LAVETI KAMALA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the parties are same and as the matter arises out of the same proceedings, both these petitions can be disposed of together.

(2.) During the course of the trial on behalf of the prosecution the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a memo annexing there with certain documents, requesting the Court, to receive them as additional evidence since it has come to light about the importance of those documents. At the same time, Additional Public Prosecutor filed a memo under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to summon two additional witnesses instead of the list witnesses. L. Hanumantha Rao and P. Hanumantha Rao who since died to examine the proposed witnesses being the legal heirs and who were conversant with the facts of the case. Both the applications having been dismissed under the two impugned orders in Crl. M.Ps. 1495 of 2000 and 1929 of 2000 respectively in C.C.262 of 1996, the defacto complainant assails those orders in these two criminal proceedings as aforesaid.

(3.) Initially two separate criminal revision cases have been filed assailing those orders and after having realised that both the impugned orders are in the nature of interlocutory orders sought to convert those revision cases into petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. . Such permission having been given for such conversion these petitions have come up for hearing before this Court.