APHC010024322019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE 22 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 92 OF Between: 1. K.VICTOR BABU, NGO'S COLONY, 3RDWARD, OLD TOWN, TANUKUM, W.G.DIST 1. STATE OF AP, High court of AP, Amaravathi Revision filed under Section 397/401 of circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to 01-2019 in Cr5l.A. 472/2016 on the file of the court of the IOV Additional sessions judge, West Godavari tanuku, while modify the conviction by partly allowing the appeal by setting conviction and sentence of the trial co offence under section 403 IPC and th confirmed in calendar and judgment dated 26 the file of the court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tanuku IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the calendar and judgment dated 26-10-2016 in CC. 152 of 2012 on the file of the court of II Magistrate of First class at Tanuku for time being in revision 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 92 OF 2019 BABU, NGO'S COLONY, 3RDWARD, OLD TOWN, TANUKUM, W.G.DIST ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF AP, High court of AP, Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the Judgment dated 24 2019 in Cr5l.A. 472/2016 on the file of the court of the IOV Additional sessions judge, West Godavari tanuku, while modify the conviction by partly allowing the appeal by setting conviction and sentence of the trial co offence under section 403 IPC and the conviction under sec. 406 IPC confirmed in calendar and judgment dated 26-10-2016 in CC. 152 of 2012 on the file of the court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tanuku Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the calendar and judgment dated 2016 in CC. 152 of 2012 on the file of the court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class at Tanuku for time being in the above criminal IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO 2019 BABU, NGO'S COLONY, 3RDWARD, OLD TOWN, ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision ggrieved by the Judgment dated 24- 2019 in Cr5l.A. 472/2016 on the file of the court of the IOV Additional sessions judge, West Godavari tanuku, while modify the conviction by partly allowing the appeal by setting conviction and sentence of the trial count for the e conviction under sec. 406 IPC is 2016 in CC. 152 of 2012 on the file of the court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tanuku that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the calendar and judgment dated Additional Judicial he above criminal 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentence of imprisonment by calendar and judgment dated 24-01-2019 in Crl.A.No. 472 of 2016 on the file of the court of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, W.G.Dist, Tanuku by which the calendar and judgment was modified in CC. 152/2012 dated 26-10-2016 on the file of the court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of first class at Tanuku pending disposal of the above criminal revision case IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to recall NBW issued on 08-07-2026 against the Petitioner in CrI.RC.No. 92 of 2019 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 92 OF 2019 ORDER:- The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) for challenging the judgment dated 24.01.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2016 of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Tanuku, confirming the conviction for the charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity ‘the IPC’), but reduced the sentence of imprisonment for two (02) years to six (06) months, while confirming the sentence of payment of fine for Rs.10,000/-. 2. Learned Trial Court, vide judgment, dated 26.10.2016 passed in C.C.No.152 of 2012 found the Petitioner guilty for the charge under Section 403 of ‘the IPC’ and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The Petitioner was also found guilty for the charge under Section 406 of ‘the IPC’ and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 3. Learned Appellate Court had rightly pointed out that the charge under Section 403 of ‘the IPC’ is not maintainable, when once under Section 406 of ‘the IPC’ made and it is found guilty. Therefore, learned Appellate Court has rightly set aside the charge under Section 403 of ‘the IPC’. 4. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- for the sentence of fine for the charge under Section 403 of ‘the 4 IPC’ and also Rs.10,000/- for the sentence of fine for the charge under Section 406 of ‘the IPC’. Thus, he has paid Rs.20,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the ground of Appeal submits that the evidence of witnesses of the prosecution side was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court or by the learned Appellate Court. There was a dispute between the PW-1 and the Petitioner/ Accused, but animosity was ignored by learned Trial Court. The prosecution even though failed to prove the guilt of the Petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court had relied on photocopy, which was marked as Ex.P3, found guilty the Petitioner. Therefore, it is urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 406 of ‘the IPC’. 7. Alternatively, learned counsel for the Petitioner Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, earnestly appeals that the Petitioner has been suffering from Carcinoma in advanced stage and undergoing chemotherapy in the hospital and he is bed ridden now and he filed some photographs to that effect and the Police have also confirmed the same. In view of the above, it is urged to modify the sentence of imprisonment for two years into the sentence of fine of Rs. 20,000/-, which had already been paid by the Petitioner for the charge under Section 403 and 406 of ‘the IPC’ in the interest of justice. 5 8. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the Petitioner had examined PWs 1 to 10 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and for the Petitioner side Ex.D1 was marked i.e portion of the statement of PW-6. 9. Learned Trial Court has mentioned supra, found the Petitioner guilt for two charges, but the Appellate Court set aside the charge under Section 403 of ‘the IPC’ and confirmed the charge under Section 406 of ‘the IPC’. 10. This Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot re-appreciate the evidence as if sitting in appeal, unless the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from patent illegality, perversity, or result in a miscarriage of justice. 11. In adjudicating a Criminal Revision assailing concurrent findings of conviction, it is jurisprudentially imperative to advert to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar1, wherein the Court, at Paragraph No.13, emphatically delineated the contours of revisional jurisdiction. It was observed that in the absence of demonstrable legal infirmity in the procedural framework or in the conduct of the trial, the High Court is bereft of justification to exercise its revisional powers. The Hon’ble Apex Court underscored that revisional authority is not a forum for re- appreciation or re-evaluation of evidence with a view to supplant the findings of the Trial Court. Only where there exists manifest illegality or palpable perversity culminating in grave miscarriage of justice, can the extraordinary 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 6 jurisdiction under revision be legitimately invoked, otherwise, judicial restraint must prevail. 12. In the context of revisional scrutiny over concurrent findings of conviction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Appa Babu Ingale 2, at Paragraph No.2, has categorically circumscribed the ambit of interference by the High Court. The Court observed that ordinarily it is impermissible for the revisional Court to unsettle concurrent determinations of fact rendered by the subordinate Courts, particularly by embarking upon a fresh re-appreciation of evidence. The revisional jurisdiction, being supervisory in nature, is not intended to function as a second appellate forum, its invocation is justified only where glaring illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice is manifest. Absent such exceptional circumstances, judicial discipline mandates deference to the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 13. In Jagannath Chowdhary v. Ramayan Singh 3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while elaborating upon the ambit of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ lucidly articulated that such power is inherently discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised judiciously, never arbitrarily. Judicial discretion, as the Court emphasized, must be “informed by tradition, methodized by analogy and disciplined by system,” thereby confining its invocation to circumstances of glaring procedural defects, manifest errors of law, or flagrant miscarriage of justice. The revisional forum 2AIR 1993 SC 1126 3AIR 2002 SC 2229 7 is not an appellate tribunal for re-scrutiny of evidence or substitution of possible alternative views, its application is restrictive, reserved for exceptional situations where correction of illegality or prevention of gross injustice is imperative. The Court further clarified that while the High Court retains supervisory authority over subordinate courts, both administratively and judicially, the jurisdictional sweep under Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ remains circumscribed. In the facts under consideration, the High Court was held to have transgressed its revisional limits by setting aside an acquittal and directing a fresh judgment, which constituted a significant departure from the normal course of revisional adjudication. Therefore, this Court cannot re- appreciate the evidence of the prosecution. 14. Hence the conviction for the charge under Section 406 of ‘the IPC’ is confirmed. However, with regard to sentence of imprisonment of two (02) years and payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed for the offence punishable under Section 406 of ‘the IPC, provision does not prescribe any minimum punishment. It says that the person who is found guilty may be punished with imprisonment up to 3 years or with fine or with both. The Petitioner is not a seasonable offender. There are no similar adverse antecedents reported against him. The Petitioner has been suffering from illness as mentioned supra. 15. Taking into consideration, the gravity and nature of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to sentence the Petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. The Petitioner to suffer 8 two (02) years of imprisonment is modified with that of sentence of payment of a fine of Rs.20,000/-. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 22.07.2026 KK