APHC010127952010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI j TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1719 OF 2010 Between: 1. Kuruva Sekhar, S/o.Narasingappa, aged 35 years, OccAgricultural Coolie, R/o.Naganathanahalli Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District. Boya Bheema, S/o.Somanna, aged 32 years, Occ: Agricultural Coolie, R/o.Naganathanahalli Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District. Ediga Erappa, S/o.Allappa, aged 55 years, Occ;Agriculiural Coolie, R/o.Naganathanahalli Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District. (Died) Balija Nagalingappa, S/o.Uchappa, aged 50 years, OccAgricultural Coolie, R/o.Naganathanahalli Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District. (Died) 2. 3. 4. ...Petitioners/Appellants/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati. ...Respondent/Respondent/Complainant Revision filed under Sections 397 (1) and 401 of Cr.PC Judgment, dated 08-02-2010 passed in Crl.A.No.73 of 2009 on the file of the II against the til Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, which was preferred against the Judgment, dated 29-04-2009 passed in C.C.No.408 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni, Kurnool District. Counsel for the Petitioner Nos.1&2: Sri M.Krathi Girish, Advocate representing Sri P.Nagendra Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: APHC010127952010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1719/2010 Between: 1.KURUVA SEKHAR, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT & 3 OTHERS, S/0. NARASINGAPPA AGRICULTURAL COOLIE R/0. NAGANATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2.BOYA BHEEMA, S/0. SOMANNA AGRICULLTURAL COOLIE R/0. NAGANATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3.EDIGA ERAPPA, S/0. ALLAPPA AGRICULLTURAL COOLIE R/0. NAGANATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4.BALIJA NAGALINGAPPA, S/0. UCHAPPA AGRICULLTURAL COOLIE R/0. NAGANATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP HIGH COURT OF A P HYDERABAD, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent; \ Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l719 of201Q Dated 08.07.20215 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case 397 and 401 of Code Cr.P.C’) challenging punishable under Section 427 has been preferred under of Criminal Procedure Sections 1973 (for brevity ‘the the offences the concurrent conviction for of the Indian Penal Code I860 (for II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at wde judgment dated 08.02.2010. The brevity 'the IPC) by the learned i Adoni in Crl.A.No.73 of 2009 ,W learned Judicial Magistrate dated 29.04.2009 found Sections 148 and 427 of of First Class, Adoni, in C.C.No.408 of 2006 the petitioners guilty for the offence under the IPC’ and convicted them. 2. In the course of hearing, it is brought to the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 died. Therefore, the and 4 is dismissed as abated. notice that the case against petitioner Nos.3 3. Mr. M. Krathi Girish Sri. P. Nagendra Reddy, the learned counsel. representing petitioners, while Courts for the offence punishable the learned counsel for the reiterating the grounds of the revi revision submits that the learned below erroneously convicted the petitioners 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l719 of 2010 Dated 08.07.2025 f under Section 427 of ‘the I PC’ and imposed fine of Rs. 1,000/- each by relying on the evidence of the interested witnesses; independent witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case. there were no 4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Prosecutor, argued that the learned Appellate appreciated the judgment of the learned Trial Court and judgment of the learned Trial Court to the extent of Public Court had rightly modified the setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed for the charge under Section 148 of the I PC’ and confirmed the conviction and sentence for the charge not require any as there was no flagrant miscarriage of justice and misreading of evidence and urged to dismiss under Section 427 of 'the IPC’ and the Judgment does interference on whatsoever grounds the Criminal Revision Case. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. Assistant 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.73 of 2009 dated 08.02.2010, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions \ 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l719 of 2010 Dated 08.07.2025 Judge, Kurnool, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, orjudgment, and there dre any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 1. While deciding a criminal revision case filed against concurrent conviction of accused, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of BiharVhereinat 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 nn justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of itsrevisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-aopreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the^ absence—of—manifest lllegaiitv resulting in grave rnjscarriaqe of justice, exercise of revisionai jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. ” 8. In State of Karnataka v. Appa Babu Ingale^at Paragraph No.2 is held as under; it ‘‘...Ordinarily it is not open for the High Court to interfere with the concurrent fndings of the courts below specially by re-appreciating the evidence in its revisionai Jurisdiction....” 9. In Jagannath Chowdhary v. Ramayan Singh ^ at Paragraph Nos. 10 to 13 it is held as under; “10. While it is true and now well-settled in a long catena of cases that exercise of power under Section ^(2002) 6 see 650 ^AIR 1993 Se 1126 "air 2002 Se 2229 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l719 of 2010 Dated 08.07.2025 401 cannot but be ascribed to be discretionary - this discretion, however, as is popularly informed has to be a judicious exercise of discretion and not an arbitrary one. Judicial discretion cannot but be a discretion which stands "informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and disciplined by system" - resultantly only in the event of a glaring defect in the procedural aspect or there being a manifest error on a point of law and thus a flagrant miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under this statute ought not to be called for. It is not to be lightly exercised but only In exceptional situations where the justice delivery system requires interference for correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. In Nosibolla: Logendranath Jha and Chinnaswamy Reddy (supra) as also In Thakur Das (Thakur Das (Dead) by LRs v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr, 1978 (1) SCO 27) this Court with utmost clarity and In no uncertain terms recorded the same. It is not an appellate forum wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible; neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible. It is restrictive in its application though in the event of there being a failure ofjustice there can said to be no limitation as regards the applicability of the revisional power. 11. The High Court possesses a general power of superintendence over the actions of courts subordinate to It. On its administrative side, the power is known as the power of superintendence. On the judicial side, it is known as the duty of revision. The High Court can at any stage even on its own motion, if it so desires, and certainly when Illegalities or irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice call for the records and examine them. This right of the High Court is as much a part of the administration of justice as its duty to hear appeals and revisions and interlocutory applications -so also its right to exercise its powers of administrative superintendence. Though however, the jurisdictional sweep of the process of the High Court, however, under / 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l719 of 2010 Dated 08.07.2025 the provisions of Section 401 is circumscribed, as noticed hereinbefore. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid, we do feel it expedient to record that in the contextual facts presently under consideration before this Court, the High Court cannot but be said to have exceeded its revisional jurisdiction In setting aside the order of acquittal. 13. In any event, writing of a fresh judgment directed by the Court Is rather a significant departure in normal disposal of revisional applications. Opportunities have been given for further argument but would that by itself tilt the scale - this aspect of the matter has already been noticed earlier, as such we need not dilate thereon excepting recording that extremely significant departure from the normal form of Court orders stands challenged in this Court. ” very much as the an 10. Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a second appellate court. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke it’s revisional power as a Second Appellate Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, Jagannath Chowdhary and Appa Babu Ingale. However, this Court is not denuded of its powers to examine whether judgments impugned are correct, legal and proper with respect to their findings, sentence or even judgment and there are any \ 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l719 of 2010 Dated 08.07.2025 material irregularities. If there are manifest illegalities and interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of those manifest illegalities or to prevent a great miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to evaluate the evidence and analyze it and come to a just conclusion. t As seen from the judgment of the learned Trial Court, the 11. prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked EXs.P.1 to 8 i and M.Os.1 to 5. For defence side Ex.DI was marked. 12. The learned Trial Court observed the evidence of P.W.1 to 5 supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court gave a finding that the petitioners damaged the articles and caused loss to the witnesses of the prosecution. The learned Appellate Court also confirmed the same. Re- 13. appreciation of the evidence is not permissible under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ at this revisional stage. The judgment of the learned Appellate Court is sustainable either in terms of the conviction or in terms of the sentence imposed against the petitioners. For the above reasons, there are no merits in the Criminal 14. Revision Case and the same is to be dismissed. 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l719 of 2010 Dated 08.07.2025 In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall 15. be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. (With records if any) The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni, Kurnool District. The Station House Officer, Isvi Police Station, Kurnool District. One CC to Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of AP at Amaravati. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Two CD Copies BSV AL high court DATED:08/07/2025 ORDER CRLRC NO. 1719 OF 2010 gT 2 >1 SEP 2025 )|i dismissing the criminal revision WITHOUT COSTS CASE