1 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.122 of 2020 Dated 10.09.2026 APHC010053812020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 122/2020 Between: THONDA KASAMMA,, W/O. YESU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, R/O. TELAGA PARNULA, DRIVERS COLONY, GOKAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M/S INNATE LAW ASSOCIATES 2.M.NAGA SAI LALITH KUMAR (LEGAL AID) Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.122 of 2020 Dated 10.09.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’), by the Petitioner/Accused challenging the judgment dated 27.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.346 of 2018 on the file of the learned XII Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Pithapuram, whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 28.09.2018 in C.C.No.164 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram, was confirmed. The Petitioner/Accused was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Mr.M.Naga Sai Lalith Kumar, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of revision, submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court convicted the Petitioner merely on assumptions. Hence, he urged this Court to allow the present Criminal Revision Case. 3. Per contra, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court rightly convicted the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 411 of ‘the ‘IPC’; that 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.122 of 2020 Dated 10.09.2026 there are no merits in the present Criminal Revision Case; and that the evidence cannot be re-appreciated in the absence of any material irregularity or miscarriage of justice. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Criminal Revision Case. 4. Heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.346 of 2018 dated 27.12.2019 on the file of the learned XII Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Pithapuram, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. As seen from the record, the learned Trial Court had examined as many as nine witnesses, P.Ws.1 to P.W.9, and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and also M.Os.1 and 2, and convicted the petitioner for the charge under Section 411 of ‘the IPC.,’ and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 8. M.Os.1 and 2 were handed over to P.W.1. M.Os.1 and 2 are gold kadiyam (danda vankee) and they were found in the possession of the petitioner/accused. As the witnesses could not identify the petitioner/accused, the learned Trial Court, having observed that the stolen property was found in 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.122 of 2020 Dated 10.09.2026 the possession of the petitioner/accused within a reasonable time, convicted her for the charge under Section 411 of ‘the IPC’. The judgment of the learned Trial Court was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. There are no material irregularities and this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in a Criminal Revision Case. 9. The learned Appellate Court, upon appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, considered and answered all the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the appeal and dismissed the appeal by holding that the judgment of the learned Trial Court is valid, legal and sustainable. The scope of interference in a Criminal Revision Case is very limited. 10. In this regard, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1 wherein at Paragraph No.13 it is held as under: “13. ... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla2 at Paragraph No.10 held as under: “The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr.P.C., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 2AIR 1951 SC 196 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.122 of 2020 Dated 10.09.2026 Govt. has o right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.” 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP3, at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce. or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles.” 13. Keeping in view all the principles laid down in the judgments referred to supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any 3AIR 1962 SC 1788 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.122 of 2020 Dated 10.09.2026 iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a Second Appellate Court. Therefore, re-appreciation of the evidence is not practically possible or feasible. 14. Thus, this Court has no power to re-appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as if it were sitting as a Second Appellate Court. On careful consideration of the judgment of the learned Appellate Court, this Court does not find any material irregularity, illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice warranting interference with the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 15. There are no merits in the present case with regard to the conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 411 of ‘the IPC.,’ and the said conviction is sustainable. With regard to the sentence of imprisonment for a period of six (06) months, the petitioner has been in judicial custody in the Special Prison for Women, Kadapa, in another offence. The sentence of imprisonment which the petitioner is undergoing in connection with Crime Nos.164, 266, 327, 384, 293, 179, 157 and 168 of 2025 is set off under Section 427 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. 16. For the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.122 of 2020 Dated 10.09.2026 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 10.09.2026 RSI/DRNR 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.122 of 2020 Dated 10.09.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 122 of 2020 Dated: 10.09.2026 RSI/DRNR 128