APHC010305192010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 321/2010 Between: 1. DALAYI SURI BABU, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DIST., S/O. RAMULU R/O. 1ST STREET, DOLPHIN COLONY, SAMBA MURTHY NAGAR, KAKINADA, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY P P HYDERABAD, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto allow the Revision Case by setting aside the Judgment passed in Crl.A. No. 78 of 2008 on the file of the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada, dt. 18-01-2010 and the judgment passed in C.C. No. 449 of 2004 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Proh. & Excise, Kakinada, dt. 05-03-2008. IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 452 OF 2010 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of certified copy of the Judgment dt. 05-03-2008 made in C.C. No. 449 / 2004 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Proh. & Excise, Kakinada. IA NO: 2 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 464 OF 2010 2 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.321 of 2010 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BVSS BALAKRISHNA RANJIT Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.321 of 2010 The Court made the following Order: The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against a judgment dated 18.01.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2008 passed by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada, wherein he confirmed the order of conviction and sentence against the petitioner under Sections 304-A, 337 & 338 of I.P.C. recorded by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada in C.C.No.449 of 2004, dated 05.03.2008. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner, who was a driver of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 5Y 2290. On 12.07.2003, at about 4:00 P.M., while he was driving the auto, the deceased and PWs.1 to 3 were boarded at Kalpana Talkies, Kakinada. At about 4:30 P.M., they reached near Arani Agro Oil industries, the accused drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner on the road and dashed an oil tanker bearing No.AP 5T 3357, which was stationed at the said Arani Agro Oil industries limited. As a result, the auto rickshaw was badly damaged, the inmates were also sustained injuries and the deceased was sustained severe injuries and fell unconscious. While the deceased was brought to the hospital for treatment, she declared brought dead. Charge was framed against the petitioner under Sections 337, 338 & 304 – A of IPC. During trial, prosecution has examined as many as 13 4 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.321 of 2010 witnesses as PWs.1 to 13 and several documents were also marked as Exs.P1 to P27. After hearing the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Court found the petitioner to be guilty under Section 304 (A) of IPC, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and also simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for each offence under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. Learned Appellate Court has scanned the evidence further and found no reason, and as such, dismissed the Appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 5. It appears that the evidence of prosecution contains some eye witnesses including PWs.1 and 2, who were boarded at the time of accident. Both the witnesses have stated about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto i.e., the petitioner and I have perused the entire evidence on record, I find no merit to interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below. 6. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court confirmed by the learned Appellate Court appears to be justified. However, in considering the sentence imposed in this case, it appears that the present petitioner is more than 60 years old. It also appears that the incident has happened in the year 2003, more than 20 years have lapsed i.e., nearly two (02) decades have already been lapsed. The petitioner 5 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.321 of 2010 being old age person must have suffered immense mental pain and agony during the course of the entire criminal litigation. 7. It further appears that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surendran Vs. Sub Inspector of Police1 has held that the punishment of substantive imprisonment is not desirable for offence punishable under Section 304 – A of I.P.C. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of three (03) months imposed by the learned Trial Court as confirmed by the learned Appellate Court against the petitioner is hereby modified to fine of Rs.10,000/-. 8. The petitioner is directed to deposit the fine before the learned Trial Court within six (06) weeks from the date of passing of this order, failing which the order of substantive sentence would be sustained. 9. With the above observations, the instant Criminal Revision is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. _______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date:19.09.2026 KPV 1 2021 Supreme(SC) 298 6 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.321 of 2010 139 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:321 of 2010 19.09.2026 KPV