A APHC010537162011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. CRIMINAL REVLSinM rAcp mq- LAKSHMANA RAO 2013 OF 2011 Revision filed under Section : Judgment passed in CrIA.No. 120/2010 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the dt. 27-09-2011 on the file of the Court O dd,tonal District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Srikakulam filed against the order passed in CC.No.279/2008, dt. 02-11-2010 Special Judicial Magistrate of First on the file of the court of Class, Prohibition and Excise Court, Srikakulam, District. Between: Reddy Suri, S/o. Late Sintntaiah, Aged about 31 years, Patharalapalli Village Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh A.P. Hyderabad. Rep. By Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of ...Respondent/Respondent ■f r-. .. lA NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 3006 OF 20111 Petition under Section 397 (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 operation of the order passed in CrlA.No.120/2011,dt. 27-09-2011 on the file of the court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Srikakulam filed against the order passed in CC.No.279/2008, dt.2-11-2010 on the file of the court of Special Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Prohibition and Excise court, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: •APHC010537162011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2013/2011 Between: REDDY SURI, S/0 LATE SIMMAIAH PATHARALAPALLI VILLAGE. RANASTHALAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP REP BYITS P P, High court of AP Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: ARAVALA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 27.09.2011 in Crl.A.No.120 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dr. YLR, J ^ Crl.R.C.No.2013 of 2011 . Dated 01.07.2025 .11.2010 passed in C.C.No.279 Magistrate of First Class, District, convicting the petitioner for of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for Srikakulam, confirming the judgment dated 02 of 2008 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Prohibition and Excise Court, Srikakulam the offence punishable under Section 337 brevity ‘the IPC’). 2. Mr. G. Gopinath, the learned Rao, the learned counsel for the revision, submits that the documents were filed with regard to the cri frightened due to the earlier counsel, representing Sri Aravala Rama petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of owner of the auto was not examined and no crime vehicle; as the bullocks accident, they took a sudden turn, and and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses were ignored; corroboration of the evidence of P.W.1 is not there, and P.Ws.1 and 2 had petitioner, and urges to allow the Criminal Revision were consequently, the accident occurred. Omissions not identified the Case. 3. Alternatively, it is submitted that imposed towards fine as a and it is urged to dispose of the Criminal accident occurred in the to speedy trial, which is 21 of the Constitution of India and an amount of Rs.5,000/- may be measure of penance for the misdeed of petitioner. Revision Case, inasmuch as the year 2008 and nearly 17 years have passed by; right under Article guaranteed to the petitioner, was infringed. one of the fundamental rights enshrined 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2013 of 2011 Dated 01.07.2025 Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 4. argued that the learned Appellate Court appreciated the evidence on correct lines and confirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Court; there are no material irregularities, misreading of evidence, or flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, and urged to dismiss the revision case by submitting that the appreciation of evidence is not contemplated under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by 5. the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. Now the point for consideration is; 6. “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.120 of 2010, dated 27.09.2011, passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam District, are 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 concurrent 7. conviction of accused, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of BIharVhereinat 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 '(2002) 6 see 650 4 Dr. YLR, J ^ Crl.R.C.No.2013 of 2011 ^ Dated 01.07.2025 ^ M ^ finding different from fh^ tna! Court. In the absence nt manifest illeaRlify resulting in amwe^ SSSS5?«==i*£-Bi»3 8. In State of Karnataka held as under; V. Appa Babu Ingale^at Paragraph No.2 it iIS “. ..Ordinarily it is not open for the High Court to interfere joncurrent findings of the courts below specially by appreciating the evidence in its revislonaljurisdiction.. ” 9. In Jagannath Chowdhary v. Ramayan Singh^ at Paragraph Nos.10 to 13 it is held as under: with re- cases '^ell-settled In a long catena of cases that exercise of power under Section 401 cannot but be ascribed to be discretionary - this discretion, however as is popularly informed has to be a Judicious exercise of discretion and not an arbitrary one. Judicial discretion cannot but be a discretion '-hioh stands 'Wormed by tradition, methodised by anaolgy and by system" - resultantly only in the event of a %aring defect in the procedural aspect or there being a manifest ernor on a point of law and thus a flagrant miscarriage ofjustice exercise of iTTmt tobTfZf “Sf"' not to be called for. oTZtionT*'"" tbtetfelcTZ correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of a gross ChinnT^^ Logendranath Jha and f^innaswarny Reddy (supra) as also in Thakur Das (Thakur Das '/- State of Madhya Pradesh and Ann, 1978 (1) snd in no uncertain terms edTen appellate forum wherein scrutiny of ^ossta/e; neither the revisiona! jurisdiction is open for hZI of another view tZ Llnt^7'Z restrictive in its application though in ^ of atere being a failure ofjustice there can said to be no limitation as regards the applicability of the revisiona! power 7 7. The High Court possesses a general power of superintendence over the actions of courts subordinate to it On its administrat^e side, the power is known as the power of supenntendence. On the judicial side, it is known as thZtJy of ^AIR 1993 SC 1126 ^AIR 2002 SC 2229 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2013 of 2011 Dated 01.07.2025 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. 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.” Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, this Revision Case is decided without there being any iota of re-appreciation of evidence. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke it’s revisional 10. 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 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 or even judgment and there are any material irregularities. If there are manifest illegalities and interest of public justice requires interference for the 6 Dr. YLR, J 0^ Crl.R.C.No.2013of2011 ‘ Dated 01.07.2025 correction of those manifest illegalities or to prevent a great miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to evaluate the evidence come to a just conclusion. Before the learned Trial Court the and got marked Exs.P.1 to 10. and analyze it and 11. prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 12. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.01.2008, the petitioner, being the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 30 U 7039 drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a bullock cart. As a result, the auto turned turtle and the passengers in the auto, namely P.Ws.1, 2, and 5 suffered multiple injuries. Based on the medical intimation, of 2008 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections of ‘the IPC’. The Sub-Inspector of Police took scene of offence, prepared a sketch and offending vehicle checked by P.W.6- Motor Vehicle a case in Cr.No.4 337 and 338 up investigation, examined the scene observation report, and got the Inspector, who issued a were no mechanical defects in the offending vehicle. After completion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet. certificate stating that there 13. The learned Trial Court found that the petitioner drove the vehicle I rash and negligent manner and caused the of the direct witnesses of the also established, inasmuch Ex.P-5. P.W.1 in a accident. Based on the evidence prosecution, the identity of the petitioner as the name of the petitioner was mentioned in was a direct eyewitness. P.W.5 also stated that the was the accused who drove the vehicle. was petitioner Taking into consideration the 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2013 of 2011 Dated 01.07.2025 evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo one (01) month Simple Imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. The learned Appellate Court, having appreciated the evidence on 14. correct perspective, confirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Court. For the above reasons, the conviction for the offence under Section 337 15. of ‘the IPC.,’ shall be maintained. Insofar as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is concerned, there are no adverse prior or subsequent antecedents against the petitioner. The accident occurred on 14.01.2008, and nearly 17 years have passed. The petitioner is now aged about 45 years. The victim of the accident suffered simple injuries that is the reason why the learned Courts below convicted him under Section 337 of ‘the IPC’. Section 337 of ‘the IPC’ gives discretion to this Court either to impose six (06) months of punishment or fine or both. Considering the entire gamut of the case, an amount of Rs.5,000/-, as volunteered by the petitioner towards measure of penance, would be proportionate to the gravity of the case. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, confirming the 16. conviction for the offence under Section 337 of ‘the IPC’, while modifying the sentence of imprisonment of one (01) month to that of payment of a fine of Rs.300/-, excluding the fine amount of Rs.200/- already paid by the petitioner while preferring the appeal, within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of this order. Further, the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.4,700/- 8 Dr.YLRJ ^ Crl.R.C.No.2013 of 2011 * Dated 01.07.2025 ' as compensation under Section 357 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to the Victim(s) of the accident or their Legal Representatives equally within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order before the learned Trial Court, failing which the petitioner shall suffer one (01) month of Simple Imprisonment, as ordered by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. No order as to costs. The learned Trial Court shall take required follow up steps. As a sequel. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// fu 'ig' SECTION OFFICER 1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Srikakulam. (With Records) To, 2. The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Court, Srikakulam, District. 3. One CC to Sri. Aravala Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court Amaravati. [OUT] 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra 6. Two CD Copies Prohibition and Excise of Andhra Pradesh at Pradesh. Chp sree HIGH COURT DATED:01/07/2025 ORDER CRLRC NO. 2013 OF 2011 g» 5 21JUL 2025 g ^ ^ Current Section DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE