APHC010325112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 705 OF 2025 Revision filed under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS., aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 03-06-2025 made in Crl.A.No.14 of 2023 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, YSR District against the Judgment, dated; 09-01-2023 made in C.C.No.82 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu, Y.S.R.District. Between: U Mohammad Rafi, S/o. U.Fakruddin, Aged about 63 years, Occ; retired employee, R/o. Door No.308-15/1, Ramalayam Street, Allagadda, presently residing at Door No.87/258, Madhavi Nagar, Kurnool ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 438 (1) of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court, may be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed in Judgment, dated 03-06-2025 made in Crl.A.No.14 of 2023 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, YSR District against the Judgment, dated: 09-01-2023 made in C.C.No.82 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu, Y.S.R.District and grant bail to the petitoners, pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case. : SRI P V N KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER : •APHC010325112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] □ MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 705/2025 Between: U. Mohammad Rafi ...PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: P.V.N Kiran Kumar Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’)/Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging the judgement dated 03.06.2023 in Crl.A.No.14 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence for the charge under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, f860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) passed by the learned Judicial f.' 2 Dr.YL ,• Crl.R.C.No.705 of 202. Dated 21.07.2025 Magistrate of I Class, Jammalamadugu in C.C.No.82 of 2016 dated 09.01.2023 sentencing the petitioner to suffer three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) for the charge under Section 323 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and sentence of imprisonment of three months for the charge under Section 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ was confirmed. . I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and 2. the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Sri P.V.N. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, while 3 reiterating the grounds of the revision, submits that even though there were discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court failed to see them and convicted the petitioner; there was a delay of registration of F.I.R also falsely foisted the name of the petitioner and urged to allow the criminal revision case. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner is aged about 61 years. 4. The de-facto complainant is relative of the petitioner he went to the P.W.1 to settle the 498-A issue. The petitioner may be imposed fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as a measure of penance excluding the payment of fine paid by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court at the time of the preferring the appeal. The petitioner has not committed any offence similar in nature earlier and the petitioner is working as a Headmaster in 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2025 Dated 21.07.2025 Elementary Aided School, Allagadda and urged to dispose of the criminal revision case. On the other hand, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently argued that the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution was thoroughly examined by the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court as the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the 5. petitioner which was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, there is no misreading of evidence; there is no flagrant miscarriage of justice; there are no material irregularities and urged to dismiss the criminal revision case as it is not feasible to re-appreciate the evidence in the revisional stage, while admitting that there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioner. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 7. Now the point for consideration is; “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.14 of 2023 dated 03.06.2025 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?" While deciding a criminal revision case filed against acquittal of accused, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari 8. 4 Dr.Yv ’ Crl.R.C.No.705 of 20. Dated 21.07.202!:. Prasad Singh v. State of BiharVherein 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. ” 9. In State of Karnataka v. Appa Babu Ingale^ at Paragraph No.2 it is held as under: “...Ordinarily it is not open for the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below specially by appreciating the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction.... ” In Jagannath Chowdhary v. Ramayan Singh^ at Paragraph Nos. 10 to 13 it is held as under: re- 10. “10. While it is true and now well-settled in a long catena of cases that exercise of power under Section 401 cannot but be ascribed to be discretionary - this discretion, however, populariy informed has to be a judicious exercise of discretion and not an arbitrary one. Judiciai 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 a point of law and thus a flagrant miscarriage ofjustice, 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 as IS error on 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 Ann, 1978 (1) see 27) this eourt with utmost clarity and in no uncertain terms recorded the same. It is not an appellate forum wherein scrutiny of ^(2002) 6 see 650 ^AIR 1993 Se 1126 ^AIR 2002 se 2229 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2025 Dated 21.07.2025 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 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 the provisions of Section 401 is very much 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. no 13. In any event, writing of a fresh judgment as directed by the Court is rather a significant departure in the 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 an extremely significant departure from the normal form of Court orders stands challenged in this Court. ” 11. 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 6 Dr Crl.R.C.No.705ofl Dated 21.07.20, 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 material irregularities. If there even judgment and there are any are manifest illegalities and interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of those manifest illegalities to prevent a great miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to evaluate or or the evidence and analyze it and come to a just conclusion. 12. The learned Trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 6, marked Exs.P1 M.O.Nos.1 to 3. There to 5 and no evidence marked for the defence and witness was examined by the petitioner. The iearned Appeiiate Court analyzing the evidence of the witnesses of the was no after prosecution found that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Sections 323 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and sentenced him as mentioned above. and 506 13. The learned Appellate Court having examined the evidence of the prosecution and analyzed the grounds raised in the appeal found that there was no substance in the appeal and dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the learned Trial Court. Whether in the statement of the witnesses there was any discrepancies are not cannot be looked into at this juncture, as this Court cannot afford the re-appreciate of the witnesses of the prosecution under Sections 397 read with 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,7 Sections 438 and 442 of 'the BNSS’. 7 Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2025 Dated 21.07.2025 r 14. For the above reasons, the conviction for the charge under Section 323 and 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ shall be maintained. 15. However, the petitioner has not indulged in similar kind of offence on earlier occasion. It is fairly conceded there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioner. The petitioner is aged about 61 years working as Headmaster in Elementary Aided School. The petitioner is about to retire from the service in few a months. The petitioner and the P.W.1 are relatives, in view of the above, the sentence of simple imprisonment of one (01) month and payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. Since there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioner and he is working in Elementary Aided School, a further fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) is imposed for the charge under and furthermore Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) is imposed additionally for the charge under Section 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ it would have met ends of justice additionally. For the above reasons, the criminal revision case is disposed of confirming the conviction for the offence under Sections 323 and 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ while modifying the sentence of simple imprisonment of one (01) month into sentence of payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- additionally: the sentence of three (03) months imprisonment under Section 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is modified into Rs.5,000/- payment of fine additionally. This additional amount of fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed in this order is in addition to the fine already Section 323 of ‘the I.P.C. 16. f:' \ Dpa Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2 Dated 21.07.20; \ paid by the petitioner. The additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner within one (01) month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three (03) months. The fine amount additionally be paid by the petitioner i.e., Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to the de-facto complainant or his legal representative, if de-facto complainant alive. 17. The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jammalamadugu, is directed to take necessary required steps. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand SD/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR I closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, YSR District. (By Rpad) The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu, Y.S.R.District. (By Rpad) The Station House Officer, Jammalamadugu Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. One CC to Sri P V N Kiran Kumar Advocate [OPUC] Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi Two CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. SAM TAG HIGH COURT DATED:21/07/2025 ORDER CRLRC No. 705 Of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC