APHC010474312001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: Between: Sri K.radhakrishna Reddy(died) and Others V Shankar Auto Sankar A1 and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D SANGEETHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MASTHAN NAIDU CHERUKURI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Heard Sri N.Mourya Singh, learned counsel, on behalf of Ms. D Sangeetha Reddy Sri N.Harinath, learned counsel Sri Masthan Naidu Cherukuri 2. The Revision was preferred challenging the inadequacy of the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court in S.C.No.350 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1036 OF 2001 Sri K.radhakrishna Reddy(died) and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND V Shankar Auto Sankar A1 and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): D SANGEETHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): MASTHAN NAIDU CHERUKURI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order: N.Mourya Singh, learned counsel, on behalf of D Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Harinath, learned counsel, on behalf of Masthan Naidu Cherukuri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 preferred challenging the inadequacy of the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court in S.C.No.350 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor. The learned trial Court convicted and IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) N.Mourya Singh, learned counsel, on behalf of petitioner and on behalf of learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. preferred challenging the inadequacy of the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court in S.C.No.350 of 2000 on the file of the . The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code; R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code; R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and; R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 353 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K.Ramachandran v. V.N.Rajan1, held that when an appeal has been dismissed either on merits or on condonation of delay, the revision is not maintainable. 4. In Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam2, it was held that once an appeal against acquittal stood dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, revision against acquittal cannot be entertained. 5. It is represented that the State has also preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.301 of 2005 against inadequacy of sentence imposed by the trial Court and the same was dismissed on merits on 25.04.2005. 6. In that view of the matter, this Criminal Revision Case is also dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 10.3.2025 TJN 1 (2009) 14 SCC 569 2 MANU/PH/4362/2013 84 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1036 OF 2001 10.3.2025 TJN HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1036 OF 2001 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date ORDER OFFICE NOTE 02. 10.3.2025 Dr. YLR, J The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. (Vide separate order) __________ Dr. YLR, J TJN