IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARC4^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE o o PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1290 OF 2009 Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the judgment passed in CrI.A.No.92/2008. dated 30.07.2009 by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Markapur, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed in CCNO.106 of 2005, dated 6.8.2008 on the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, Praksam District. Between: 1. Kalagantia Kasaiah S/o. Hassan, Aged about 34 Sarvereddy Palli Village, Komarolu Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. Pothuganti Kasaiah (A2), S/o. Peeraiah, Aged about 54 years Yarraballi Village, Komarolu Mandal, Prakasam District. years, R/o. R/O. ...PETITIONERS / APPELLANTS / ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarolu Police Station, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT » : SRI. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTl Counsel for the Petitioner .Counsel for the Respondents : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V ' % « j.r «; " The Court made the following ORDER : 4 i 4 APHC010280742009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1290/2009 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Kalagantia Kasaiah & Another AND ...RESPONDENT The State Of A P Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 30.07.2009 in CrI.A. No.92 of 2008, on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur, in confirming the judgment dated 06.08.2008 in C.C. No.106 of 2005, on the file 2 of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, convicting and sentencing the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four (04) months and pay fine amount of Rs.100/- for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for brevity ‘the P.D.P.P Act’). 2. Sri Ashok, the learned counsel representing Sri I. Koti Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision submitted that there was no eye witness to the alleged offence and no time and date was given; no report of the P.W.2 was produced, which was the basis for the case and there was no damage as per the evidence of P.W.4- investigating officer; the learned trial court erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner No.1, even though, the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the petitioner No.1 beyond the reasonable doubt and urged to allow the revision case. 3. Alternatively, it is prayed that petitioner No.1 has been suffering from acute ill-health and bed-ridden, nearly 20 years have passed by from the date of commission of the offence, his right to get speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is infringed and urged to sentence him to undergo the imprisonment to which he had already undergone in the interest of justice. 3 •S Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the learned trial court and the appellate court, having apprised the evidence on correct perspective, came to correct conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner No.1 beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him appropriately. There is no miscarriage of justice and there flagrant violations of procedure and there are no material irregularities, and urged to dismiss the revision case. 4. were no 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. Now the point for consideration is; “Whether the judgment in C.A. No.92 of 2008 dated 30.07.2009, passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or Judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” In this connection, it is apposite to refer the Judgments of the Hon’ble Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar^ wherein at 6. 7. Apex Paragraph Nos.12 & 13 it is held as under: “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 (2002) 6 see 650 4 401 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 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. ” re 8. In this connection, it is apposite to refer the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla^ 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 record. ’’ on 9. To prove the guilt of the petitioner No.1, the learned trial court examined the P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. The witnesses of the prosecution testified that the petitioner No.1 had committed the offence. P.Ws.1 and 5 vividly clear that the petitioner No.1 destroyed the revetment of percolation tank and used stones as fencing in their lands. The said fact was informed to the local MLA also. Evidence of Evidence of P.W.2, who is the Assistant Engineer, clearly stated that, he had inspected the percolation tank and found 1951 SC 196 5 revetment of the said tank was removed and the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 admitted before him that they removed the same and agreed to reconstruct the same, but they failed to do so. Therefore, P.W.2 was constrained to give report to M.D.T. Coordinator/P.W.3. P.W.3 has also deposed that on basis of information given by the P.W.2 about the destroyal of stone revetment, P.W.3 gave report to police for registration of a case. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.5 coupled with evidence of P.W.2 clearly established that the petitioners damaged the revetment of percolation tank, which is obviously a public property and caused mischief. The learned appellate court also analysed the evidence on correct perspective and conformed the judgment of the learned trial court. ^There are material irregularities committed by the learned courts below. There was misleading of evidence. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as a second appellate court. Hence, the conviction under Section 3(1) of ‘the P.D.P.P Act’ shall be maintained. 10. no no With regard to the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned trial court and conformed by the learned appellate court on petitioner No.1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four (04) months and to pay fine of Rs.lOO/-, the petitioner No.1, at the time of preferring the criminal appeal before the learned appellate court, paid Rs.500/-. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarole Police Station submitted a report stating that the petitioner 11. 6 No.2/A2/Pothuganti Kasiah died. Therefore, the case against the petitioner N0.2/A2 is abated. In the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarole Police Station, it submitted that the petitioner No.1/A1/Kalagantla Kasaiah has been bed ridden since long time due to acute illness and unable to walk. The revision case was filed in the year 2009. The offence was committed in the year 2005 i.e., nearly 20 years have passed by. 12. IS The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar^ 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 Bihar^ The petitioner No.1 has been under mental agony of delayed prosecution. The petitioner No.1 was in incarceration for more than five (05) days. In view of the obtaining peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to impose the sentence on the petitioner No.1 to the sentence with which he had already undergone. 13. 14. For the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of 15. confirming the conviction against the petitioner No.1 for the offence under ^ Air 1979 SC 1360 ' 2000(1) BUR 37 V 7 «? Section 3(1) of ‘the P.D.P.P Act’, while reducing the sentence of the imprisonment to which the petitioner No.1 had already undergone. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/- V.SATYANARAYANA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Markapur Prakasam District, (with records) 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, Praksam District, (with records) 3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarolu Police Station, Prakasam -■PifW'. ^ ^4. One CC to Sri. Koti Reddy Idamakanti Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ' 7. THREE CD COPIES PR TAC HIGH COURT DATED: 19/03/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1290 of 2009 I AUG 2(»5 jv.Ciin«ntS«clii DISPOSING THE CRLRC