APHC010478322008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1742/2008 Between: Thupakala Nageswara Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Rep By Pp ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINADH NIDAMANURI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) against the Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2007, dated 24.11.2008, passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1742 of 2008 04.03.2025 confirming the conviction and sentence of three (3) months imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti, in C.C.No.46 of 2004, vide Judgment dated 09.05.2007. 2. I have heard the arguments of Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms. Akhila, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be relied on as they are interested witnesses, there were no independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution, prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence on correct perspective and erred in confirming the Judgment of the learned Magistrate. It is further argued that this Court allowed the Criminal Case in-part, in Criminal Revision Case No.1741 of 2008, dated 20.09.2016 in respect of accused No.2 and ordered that the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Trial Court, as confirmed by the learned appellate Court, was modified to that of the period which the petitioner therein/accused No.2 had already undergone. 4. Learned counsel for the Revisionist requested to allow the Revision Case on the principle of parity. 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1742 of 2008 04.03.2025 5. Per contra, Ms. Akhila, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court rightly found the revisionist guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 of ‘the I.P.C.’ There was no material irregularity committed either by the learned Appellate Court or by the Magistrate, therefore, the conviction is required to be maintained, nonetheless the sentence may be interfered and appropriately imposed on the principle of parity. 6. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.93 of 2007 dated 24.11.2008, passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief? 7. It is apposite to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla1 wherein at Paragraph No.10 held as under: “The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr.P.C., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Govt. has no right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.” 1AIR 1951 SC 196 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1742 of 2008 04.03.2025 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP2, at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub- section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce. or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles.” 2AIR 1962 SC 1788 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1742 of 2008 04.03.2025 9. It is further apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar3 wherein at Paragraph Nos.12 & 13 it is held as under: “12. … We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the information under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court, prohibiting it from convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of the conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. 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.” 3(2002) 6 SCC 650 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1742 of 2008 04.03.2025 10. The prosecution, to prove the guilt of the Revisionist and other accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 electrical cable wire. The evidence of the P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent and corroborating with other. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot re-appreciate the evidence as laid down in D Stephens, K Chinnaswamy Reddy and Bindeshwari Prasad Singh supra. On careful perusal of the learned Appellate Court Judgment and also the Trial Court judgment, there was neither any material irregularity nor perverse finding. The conviction confirmed by the learned Appellate Court has to be maintained. 11. In regard to the sentence of imprisonment, it is brought to the notice that the Revisionist undergone six (6) days of imprisonment. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajmir Singh v. State of Haryana4 held that the principle of parity in criminal case is that, where the case of the accused is similar in all respects as that of the co-accused then the benefit extended to one accused should be extended to the co-accused. 12. The Revision was filed in the year 2008. At that time, the age of the revisionist was 48 years. It is represented that the present age of the revisionist is 65 years. Right to speedy trial, which includes hearing of the Appeal and Revision, is part of a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 4 2010 (3) SCC 746 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1742 of 2008 04.03.2025 21 of the Constitution of India as held in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar5. This right includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar6. 13. The occurrence took place about 21 years ago. The Revisionist has been facing mental agony and trauma of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 21 years. The ends of Justice would be sub-served if the sentence of imprisonment is modified to that of the sentence already undergone by the revisionist. 14. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in-part confirming the conviction imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court, while modifying the sentence of imprisonment which the Revisionist had already undergone. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 04.03.2025 CVD 5 AIR 1979 SC 1360 6 2000 (1) BLJR 37