APHC010475982009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 195/2009 Between: KARRA RAMBABU @ RAMU, S/O TATAIAH, COOLI PAREMALLA VILLAGE, PENTAPADU MANDAL, W.G.DIST. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF A P, Through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pentapadu P.S., W.G.Dist., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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.,’), challenging the judgment dated 20.08.2008 in Crl.A.No.172/2005 on the file of the learned 2 I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, confirming the judgment dated 05.08.2005 in C.C.No.1324/2000 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, whereby and whereunder the Petitioner/Accused was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) for a period of one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-; and for the offence punishable under Section 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.500/-. 2. Mr.Kambapati Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, argued that the evidence of the interested witnesses sans corroboration was relied on by the learned Trial Court and Appellate Court erroneously and convicted and sentenced the Petitioner for the charges; there was no slip on M.O.No.1/knife, which was alleged to have been seized under Ex.P2, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution; there was no independent assessment of the evidence of the prosecution by the learned Trial Court; simply and mechanically confirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Court and urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the fine amount was already paid by the Petitioner at the time of preferring the Appeal. 3. It is submitted, alternatively, that the Petitioner has already undergone more than one year imprisonment in the jail. Hence, the revision case may be disposed of sentencing the Petitioner to which he already undergone. 3 4. Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, while producing the nominal rolls of the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner has duly undergone the sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the learned Trial Court and subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Court. It was contended that there was neither misappreciation of evidence, nor any procedural irregularity or manifest miscarriage of justice. Hence, the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses need not be re-appreciated at this revisional jurisdiction. In light of the foregoing submissions, the learned Prosecutor prayed for the dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case. 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 order in C.C.No.1324 of 2000 dated 05.08.2005, passed by the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. The learned Trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 7, marked Ex.P1 to P5 and M.O.No.1/Knife on behalf of the prosecution. For Petitioner/Accused, there was no evidence or document. The learned Trial Court having gone thoroughly the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on its analyzation in correct perspective found the Petitioner guilty for the charges under Section 324 and 506 of ‘the I.P.C.’ The learned Appellate Court also appreciated every ground of appeal raised by the Petitioner and answered them correctly and thoroughly and confirmed the conviction and sentence. Therefore, the 4 conviction for the charges under Section 324 and 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ shall be maintained. 8. Insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, the nominal rolls submitted by the Superintendent, District Jail, Eluru, and the Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, reveal that the Petitioner had already undergone incarceration for a period exceeding one year in the instant case. 9. In view of the foregoing, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence for the charges under Sections 324 and 506 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ as the Petitioner has already suffered the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 11.07.2025 VTS