• V APHC010299932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLe DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 662/202^ Revision filed under Section 438 & 442 Judgment in S.T.C No. 167/2025, dated of BNSS, aggrieved by the 17-06-2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Of First Class-Cem-Civii Judge (Junior Special Judicial Magistrate Of Second Class Division), Darsi; FAC; Darsi, the present Criminal Revision is filed on the following among other. Between; Unni Pichibabu, S/o. Chennaiah, Village and Mandal, Prakasam District Aged about 32 years. R/o. Darsi 'A ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravathi. ...Respondents/Complainant lA NO: 1 OF 2()9fi Petition under Section 528 of BNSS stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the judgment in STC jhlp. 167/2025 the file of the Judicial Magistrate praying that in the circumstances Of First Class-Cum-Civil Of Second f^ # (Junior Division), Darsi; FAC; Special Judicial Magistrate * l^^l^ss; Darsi for time being period. lA NO: 2 OF 9()9fi Petition under Section 430 (1) circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i Court may be pleased to release the Petitioner of BNSS praying that in the in support of the petition, the High on ball after suspending operation of the sentence imposed in STC No. 167/2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-Civil Judge (Junior FAC: Special Judicial Magistrate Of Second Division), Darsi; Class, Darsi pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P Nagendra Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: APHC010299932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 662/2025 Between: 1.UNNI PICHIBABU, S/O.CBENNAIAB, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O.DARSI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND YTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.PNAGENDRA REDDY X Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the judgment dated 17.06.2025 in S.T.C.No. 167/2025 (Petty Case Nos.12 of 2025 to 14 of 2025 of Mundlamuru Police Station) on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-Cum- Civil Judge (Junior Divison), Darsi convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 9(1 )/5f the A.P.Gaming Act, 1974 (for 2 D.r YLR,J CrI. R. C. No. 662 of 2025 19.06.2025 brevity ‘the Act./) and sentencing month along with the other accused (A1 him to suffer simple imprisonment for one and A3). 2. Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned Counsel the learned Trial Court imposed sentence without the Petitioner for the Petitioner submits that resorting to impose fine offence at first time. The on the suggestion concerned that if he pleads guilty he would , as was indulged in commission of the Petitioner admitted guilty before the learned Trial Court given by the Court constable sentenced to fine only. 3. It is further submitted that there be were no adverse antecedents against the P(=>titinnor onW : -position of sentence of one month iimprisonment is highly unwarranted. A sentence of fine of Rs.300/- would have met the ends of justice and urged to dispose of the disproportionate and Revision Case. 4- -Ms. P.Akhila, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor no adverse antecedents or, submits that there are against the Petitioner, the learned Magistrate proportionately exercised the discretion in i would imposing sentence of fine have instead of sentence of imprisonment. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by - record. the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire 6. Now the poinffor consideration is: 't-T S..TC.No.167 of 2025 Cum-OvfjuTrf, First Class- ^um uvil Judge (Junior Divison), Darsi is correct icn^i w , proper with respect to its Mng. sentence. orjpdgment Zdthet are any matenal irregularities? And to what relief?" dated 3 Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.662 of 2025 19.06.2025 As seen from the record, the Petitioner and other Accused were found indulged in commission of offence under Section 9(1) of ‘the Act.,’ by playing gambling called Kothamukka by betting money. The Petitioner and other Accused were produced before the learned Magistrate before whom they pleaded guilty. The learned Magistrate observed that the confession of the Petitioner and other Accused was free and voluntary. While sentencing the Petitioner, the learned Magistrate has not recorded circumstances exist against the Petitioner. It is not mentioned that the Petitioner had indulged in a similar offence on earlier occasion. The Petitioner is aged about 32 years and is doing business. There is no reference in the impugned judgment about the antecedents prevalent against the Petitioner. Section 9(1) of ‘the Act.,’ empowers the learned Trial Court to impose a i sentence of three months imprisonment or fine which may extend to Rs.300/- both. 7. any aggravated I 8. 9. In view of absence of adverse antecedents against the Petitioner, the imposition of sentence of one month imprisonment is highly disproportionate and it would* have been confined to sentence of fine of Rs.300/-. For the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 9(1) of ‘the Act.,’ while setting aside the sentence of imprisonment of one month and imposing fine of Rs.300/- on the Petitioner. The fine amount shall be paid with a period of 10. one 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.662 of 2025 19.06.2025 month from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the learned Trial Court, failing which the Petitioner shall suffer 15 days rigorous imprisonment. The Judicial Magistrate First Class-Cum- Civil Judge (Junior Division), Darsi is directed to take required follow-up steps in this regard. No order as to costs.. 11. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC I iON OFhiuER 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Darsi; FAC: Special Judicial Magistrate Prakasam District. 2. The Station House Officer, District. X 3. One CC to Sri P Nagendra Reddy Advocate [OPUCJ 4. Two GO'S to The Public Prosecutor, Amaravati [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies To. of Second Class, Darsi Mundlamuru Police Station Prakasam High Court of Andhra Pradesh at SAM sree high court DATED:19/06/2025 ORDER CRLRC 662/2025 ^ 0 2 JUL 2025 p rrent fiai£ disposing of the CRLRC