1 APHC010493882014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 390 OF 2014 Between: 1. SHAIK NAGUR MEERAVALI, S/O. SAIDULU, DUDEKULA R/O. TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P PANKAJ REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order : The matter appears under the heading “for dismissal’. 2. As the Petitioner was not appearing consecutively, since filing of the instant Criminal Revision Case, thus, the matter was heard on merit by this Court on 14.11.2025. Let the matter be taken up for hearing and to pass an order. 2 3. The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month against the Petitioner. Against that order, an Appeal has been preferred before the Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court has been affirmed by the Judgment of the Trial Court. Challenging the Judgments recorded by both courts below, the instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred. 4. I have carefully perused the findings of the learned Courts below, which appears to me just and reasonable one. The order passed by the learned Courts below is also a speaking order. I find no justification to interfere with the order itself. 5. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the present Petitioner by the learned Courts below requires no interference. 6. In the above observation, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to serve out the remaining part of sentence, failing which, the learned Trial Court is at liberty to issue Non Bailable Warrant against the Petitioner to comply the order. 3 7. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date: 24.11.2025 KK 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 390 OF 2014 Date: 24.11.2025 KK