AS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 64fl OF 9nnQ Revision filed under Section ,397 & 401 of Cr.P. ‘ Judgment dt. 17-04-2009 passed in CrI.A.No. 362 of 2008 Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur C., Aggrieved by the ! on the file of the as confirming in C.C. No. 338 of 2005 on the file of the II AddltioWl Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, dt. 06.11.2008 that the sentence and convicted U/S. 420 r/w 511 IPC to undergo Rl for a period of 6 months and also to pay a fin^ of Rs.1000/- i/d SI for one Month. ■ ir' Between: j; v., Kaja Chinnaiah, S/o. Kotaiah, Aged about 48 Village and Mandal, Guntur District. years, R/o. Rentachintala - . • iV ...Petitioner/Accused AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor Hyderabad. High Court of A.P. ■■■Respondent/Complainant ■ Venkateswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: Counsel for the Petitioner i THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 649 of 2009 ORDER: 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 17.04.2009 in Crl.A.No.362 of 2008 on the file of the learned ill Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned i! Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala in C.C.No.338 of 2005 dated 06.11.2008, was confirmed. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri Thandava Yogesh, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the petitioner had not committed any offence. The prosecution could not prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond ail reasonable doubt, as there was no sufficient material available on record to convict the petitioner under Section 420 read with 511 of ‘the I.P.C’. P.W.2 and 3 are independent witnesses, but they did not support the case of the prosecution. The Investigation Officer v/as not examined by the prosecution, and urged to allow the revision case. 4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioner had already undergone 5 months 27 days in jail and he had paid fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only). The petitioner aged about 75 years, his right leg is paralysed and he lost his eye sight of right eye and urged to sentence the petitioner to the imprisonment to which he had already undergone as the alleged offence w \ ^ 2 Dr.YLR, Crl.R.C.No.649 of 200 Dated 29.04.2025 ■ V '■ was taken place in the year 2005, and nearly 20 years passed by and his right of getting speedy trial was infringed. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 5. vehemently argued that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt; there is concurrent conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 420 r/w 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’) as the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable'doubt and urged to dismissed the revision case while concurring with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the imposition of sentence to which the petitioner had already undergone. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public 6. Prosecutor. I have perused the record. Now the point for consideration is: 7. “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.362 of 2008 dated 17.04.2009 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar^ wherein at Paragraph Nos. 12 8. & 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- ^(2002) 6 see 650 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2009 Dated 29.04.2025 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-sectio'n (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 indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled bv 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 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 ivas no justification for the High Court to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Couii 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 ” so nor I 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Mosifoolia^ 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 ^AIR 1951 SC 196 4 Dr.YLR,J_^ CrI.R.C.No.649 of 2009 Dated 29.04.2025 1 Sigssil^ This Court, while Section 401 of ‘the Cr Appellate Court revision case a/7cy D Stephens. \ 10. exercising its jurisdiction ■ P.C.,’ and re-appreciation of as laid down in the decisions i under Section 397 cannot invoke its revisional power read with es a Second evidence is not permissible in the B/ndeshwar/ Prasad in S/zifir/? 11. The prosecution in examined P.Ws.1 to 4 Rentachintala Village petitioner had produced Ex. petitioner regard to marked Exs.Pi being the de-facto P3 an.application prove the guilt of the to P7. P.W.l/Syam complainant submitted petitioner had Babu, M.R.o, that the made by the petitioner to P.W.1. bearing shop No 3 Rentachintala Village. The petitioner had i supplying the goods to the The was a fair Anjaneyaswamy Manyam in so many irregularities i P W.4 varified the urging that the petitioner price shop dealer at indulged in consumers. P.W.1 and supply to the consumers and submitted diverted the goods an inquiry report to black market and on the basis a report to the RDO, the dealership of order of the of such inquiry report of P.w.4 Narasaraopet and iater PW.1 submitted the DRO The petitioner i Narasaraopet suspended the petitioner. 'n order to see review of the suspension he himself in W.P.No.918of2005 submitted by the petitioner created a letter stating that the to stall the stay orders of this Court proceedings and said latter suspension was to P.W.1 on 13.10.2005. I 5 ■ Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2009 Dated 29.04.2025 w 12. Later P.W.1 to 4 had caused enquiry and noticed that the said letter in W.P.No.918 of 2005 was fake and P.W.1 came to an understanding that he was cheated by the petitioner with malpractices. Therefore, P.W.1 lodged a report with the Station House Officer, Rentachintala, Police Station vide Ex.P1. On the basis of the said report the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Rentachintala/L.W.5 registered a case in Crime No.90 of 2005 under Section 420 r/w 511 of‘the I.P.C.,’ and investigated into. In this case, P.W.4 supported the entire case of the prosecution. Even though P.W.2 and P.W.3 turned hostile, P.W.4 the Inspector Civil Supplies, Rentachintala supported the version of P.W.1. Exs.P1 to P6 reveal that the accused had .indulged in fabrication of the Court orders. Even though the investigating Officer was not examined as a witness the case of the prosecution is not shaken, i The learned Trial Court rightly found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him. Similarly, the learned Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Court. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence of the prosecution. There is no material irregularity. Therefore, there are no flagrant violations of the procedure. There is no miscarriage of justice. There perverse findings. Hence, this revision case is not required to be considered in the favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the conviction under Section 420 r/w 511 of ‘the I.P.C. 13. are no i shall be maintained with regard to the sentence of imprisonment, the petitioner was sentenced to undergone 6 months simple imprisonment and order to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioner paid the amount of fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioner is now aged about 75 years he is 6 \ Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.649 of 2009 Dated 29.04.2025 present before the Court his right leg i Vision. The nominal rolls Guntur. They disclose that months 27 days, nearly 181 days. IS paralyzed and he lost his right eye are submitted by the Superintendent 1 District Jail, incarceration for about 5 the petitioner underwent i 14 The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right Hon’ble Supreme Court i State of Biharl This irght includes per the decision of the as in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) V- Home Secretary speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to criminal revisions a speedy trial also includes speedy disposal of as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Blhar^ The petitioner had already undergone 181 days of incarperation. The petitioner had also paid the fine amount. Moreover there antecedents against the petitioner. are no prior or,subseque/it similar adverse In view of the peculiar ci Petition is disposed of while 511 of I.P.c. but had already undergone. There shall be shall 15. circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision 420 r/w Imprisonment to which he maintaining the conviction under Section sentencing the petitioner to the i 16. no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK IWOHAMIWED RAFI assistant REGISTRAR I //TRUECOPY// I To SECTION officer 1. The III Additional Sessions 2. The II Additional Civil Judge (J«or [ 3,. One CC to Sri Chejarla Venkateswar 4. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor Amaravatl [OUT] ^ _5. Three CD Copies Guntur, Guntur District. ^ Division); Gurazala, Guntur District, a Rao, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh at I ■ HIGH COURT DATED:29/04/2025 \ ORDER CRLRC.No.64g of 2009 r' g JUL2I)25 « Current Section m DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC I