APHC010515842010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 875/2010 Between: Ande Wilson Raju, Kurnool District. ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Rep By P P Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRIDEVI GANTA 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 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 short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment dated 29.10.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 06.12.2007 in C.C.No.688 of 2007 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (prohibition & Excise), Kurnool, was confirmed. The learned trial Court found the petitioner guilty under Section 2 255(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’, and convicted him under Section 506 the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C.’) and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only), in default, the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month, while not finding him guilty for the offences under Section 448 of ‘the I.P.C’. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. Ms. G.Sridevi, learned Legal Aid counsel submitted that no independent witness was examined; there was a delay in lodging of the FIR; non- examination of QRT police is fatal to the case of the prosecution, hence, urged to allow the criminal revision case. 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, so the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner. The Appellate Court also confirmed the same. There are no flagrant violations of the procedure. No miscarriage of justice was caused to the petitioner. No material irregularity was resorted by the learned Court below and urged to dismiss the petition. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned legal aid counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 3 6. Now the point for determination is: Whether the judgment in C.C.No.688 of 2007 dated 06.12.2007 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for (Prohibition & Excise), Kurnool, 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 had examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P3 from prosecution side. The learned Trial Court examined evidence in detail and found that the petitioner was guilty for the offence under Section 506 of ‘the I.P.C’. Evidence of P.W.1 is clear that the petitioner threatened P.W.1 and his daughter in filthy language; kicked the doors demanding them to open the doors and threatened to withdraw the case filed by Vijayalaxmi, otherwise he would see her end. It was due to fear they did not open the doors, but informed to QRT police through phone by seeing the petitioner through iron grills and then the QRT police came and took the petitioner to the police station. 8. At about 8.00 AM on the same day, P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint with police under Ex.P1. The P.W.1 further stated that the incident occurred as his daughter Vijayalaxmi filed a case against the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC. P.W.2 is the daughter of P.W.1 and wife of the petitioner. P.W.2 corroborated with the version of P.W.1. It is the prerogative of the prosecution to examine any of the witnesses arrayed in the list of witnesses and to give up any witness, if the prosecutor feels that 4 testimony of the witnesses(s) given is sufficient to prove its version. Therefore, non-examination of L.W.3 (Naga Laxmi) does not have any impact on truthfulness in the version of the prosecution. The delay in lodging of the FIR is only hours. It is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and the non- examination of QRT police doesn’t have any effect on the case of the prosecution. There were no material irregularities committed by the learned Trial Court. There was no perverse finding. The learned Trail Court and Appellate Court convicted the petitioner concurrently. There are no merits in the revision. Therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 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: 26.03.2025 SNI 5 423 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 875/2010 26.03.2025 SNI