APHC010656172012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI rj .?wr_Tr -- *z.r TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1019 OF 2012 Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment dated 01-12-2010 made in Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam, wherein confirmed the conviction and modifying sentence made the calendar and judgment dated 06-10-2010 made in C.C No.297 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru, Krishna District. Between: Maganti Krishnamohan @ Chittibabu, S/o. Satyanarayana, Occ: Business, Occ: Culitivation, R/o. Vissannapeta Village & Mandal, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED N0.1 AND The State of A.P. through Vissannaeta P.S., Rept. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.,Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following ORDER ; / APHC010656172012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] ■Jjr:- TUESDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1019/201? Between: Maganti Krishnamohan @ Chittibabu, Krishna District AND The State of A.P through Vissannapeta PS rep by PP Hyd Counsel for the Petitioner: Sreenivasa Rao Velivela Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity the Cr.P.C’), challenging the judgment dated 01.12.2010 in Crl.A.No.202 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge. Krishna District at Machilipatnam, sentencing the petitioner for an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the J.P.C’) by modifying the judgment dated 06.10.2010 in C.C.No.297 of 2 Dr.YLR, J ^ Crl.R.C.No.l019of2012 i Dated 08.07.2025 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Tiruvuru by setting aside the sentence of simple imprisonment imposed for si: months. 2. Sri V. Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that there petitioner, while are inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6, and this aspect was ignored by the learned Trial Court; that there were political rivalries involving the petitioner; the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court erroneously found the petitioner guilty and convicted him under Section 323 of the I.P.C.; and urged this Court to allow the Criminal Revision Case. 3. On the other hand, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently argued that there no flagrant miscarriage of justice. The evidence of the was no misreading of evidence and prosecution witnesses was properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court and found the petitioner guilty; similarly the learned Appellate Court rightly found the petitioner guilty but, generously, reduced the sentence of imprisonment into sentence of fine only. The impugned judgement does not require any interference on any grounds whatsoever, and she urged the Court to dismiss the revision case. 4. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Prosecutor. I have perused the record. Assistant Public V ••'te' 3 Dr.YLR, J Cri.R.C.No.l019 of 2012 Dated 08.07.2025 %■ 5. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.202 of 2010 dated 01.12.2010 passed by the learned Sessions, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam , is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 6. While deciding a criminal revision case filed against acquittal of ■ accused, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of BiharVherein at 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 not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriape of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. ” In State of Karnataka v. Appa Babu Ingale^, at Paragraph No.2 it is held as under: 7. “...Ordinarily it is not open for the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below specially by re appreciating the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction...." In Jagannath Chowdhary v. Ramayan Singh^, at Paragraph Nos.10 to 13 it is held as under: 8. “10. While it is true and now well-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 ^(2002) 6 see 650 ^AIR 1993 Se 1126 ^AIR 2002 se 2229 4 Dr.YLR Crl.R.C.No.1019 of 2012? disciplined fy systTm'^ % tradition, methodised by analo Dated 08.07.2025 ^ rnmm^ see 97\ t Of Madhva Uhakur Das mm:B Pos^esLf Po^er. administrate side hfe^fow^ PdP°rdinae to i7on ? wmmmm S===«sii=;EgS on for. 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l019 of 2012 Dated 08.07.2025 % Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a second appellate court. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke it’s revisional 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 BindQshwari 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 correction of those manifest illegalities or to prevent a great miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to evaluate the evidence and analyze it and come to a just conclusion. The learned Trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to 5. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses clinchingly proves that the 9. 10. petitioner had committed the charged offence punishable under Section 323 of ‘the l.P.C’. At this juncture, in the criminal revision case, this Court would not reappreciate the evidence by sitting as second Appellate Court. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be reappreciated like a second Appellate Court. There are no irregularities, let alone material irregularities. 6 Dr.YLR, J ^ . Crl.R.C.No.l019 of 2012 . ^ Dated 08.07.2025 Therefore, the conviction under Section 323 of ‘the I.P.C. has to be maintained. 11 With regard to the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed by the learned Appellate Court by modifying the sentence of six months imprisonment imposed by the learned Trial Court, the same does not require any interference because considering entire gamut of the case the learned Appellate Court liberally modified the sentence of imprisonment for six months into fine of Rs. 1,000/- only. Hence, this criminal revision case has to be dismissed. 12. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. 13. SDI- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru, Krishna District. 3. The Station House Officer, Visannapeta Police Station, Krishna District. 4. One CC to Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 7. Two CD Copies SAM TAC high court DATED;08/07/2025 ORDER CRLRc No. 1019 of 2012 dismissing the CRLRC