APHC010203242019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 764/2019 Between: 1. PILER SURESH, SIO P.VASUDEVA, AGED ABOUT 34 YRS, R/O D.NO.3-12, INDIRA NAGAR, DHAMALACHERUVU, PAKALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.764 of 2026 Dated 21.09.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) challenging the Judgment dated 05.07.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.84 of 2016 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, whereby and whereunder the Judgment of conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 304- A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the I.P.C.’) and Section 134(a) (b) read with 187 and Section 146 read with 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the M.V.Act’) passed by the learned the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, vide its Judgment dated 02.03.2016 in C.C.No.325 of 2014, was confirmed. 2. The learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, vide its Judgment dated 02.03.2016, found the petitioner guilty, and accordingly convicted him, of the offences punishable-under Section 304-A of ‘the I.P.C.’ and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week; under Section 337 of ‘the I.P.C.’ and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week; under Section 134(a) read with 187 of ‘the M.V.Act’, and sentenced to 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.764 of 2026 Dated 21.09.2026 pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week; under Section 134(b) read with 187 of ‘the M.V.Act’, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week; and under Section 146 read with 196 of ‘the M.V.Act’ and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week. Total fine of Rs.3000/- was imposed under various counts. 3. Mr.D.Purnachandra Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that fine amount of Rs.3000/- has been paid by the petitioner while preferring the appeal before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, in Crl.A.No.84 of 2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds of the Revision and further submitted that the petitioner has been suffering from a urological problem, and that he underwent surgery and a catheter was fixed through the urethra of the petitioner; that due to fixation of the catheter, the petitioner has been brought to this Court with the assistance of his wife. It is further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 48 years and that over the years he has been suffering from ill health and has undergone several surgeries. He has also undergone 14 days’ of imprisonment, out of the one year imprisonment which was imposed by the learned by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. The counsel for the petitioner finally submitted that the petitioner may 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.764 of 2026 Dated 21.09.2026 be sentenced to imprisonment to the extent already undergone, considering his deteriorating health condition. 4. Mr.A.Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submitted that the impugned Judgment of the learned Appellate Court does not suffer from any material irregularity or there is no miscarriage of justice, and further contended that the petitioner was in a drunken condition at the time of driving his Auto, and he urged that the Criminal Revision Case may be disposed of, by confirming the conviction, and sentence of imprisonment may be appropriately imposed considering the medical ailments of the petitioner. 5. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the impugned Judgment dated 05.07.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.84 of 2016 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 of the ‘the I.P.C.’ and Section 134(a) (b) read with 187 and Section 146 read with 196 of the ‘the M.V.Act’, passed by the learned the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, vide its Judgment dated 02.03.2016 in C.C.No.325 of 2014, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. As seen from the record, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of the defence, no witnesses were examined, and no document was marked. The learned Trial Court, having appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.764 of 2026 Dated 21.09.2026 documents marked by it, found the petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of ‘the I.P.C.’ and Sections 134(a) and 134(b) read with 187, and Section 146 read with 196 of ‘the M.V.Act’ and convicted and sentenced him under the said Sections, as stated supra. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the Judgment of the learned Trial Court, and the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the grounds of the Criminal Revision Case, submits that the material witnesses of the prosecution i.e. P.Ws. 1 to 3, were planted, but this Court cannot appreciate the said contention, as this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution by sitting as a Second Appellate Court. There are no merits in the Criminal Revision Case and the conviction imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court for the charges under Sections 304-A and 337 of ‘the I.P.C.’, and Section 134 (a) (b) read with 187 and Section 146 read with 196 of ‘the M.V.Act’, is held sustainable. 9. With regard to the imprisonment imposed against the petitioner, the total fine amount has already been paid by the petitioner. The Nominal rolls of the petitioner were called for, and the Superintendent, District Jail, Chittoor, has submitted the same. As per the nominal rolls, the petitioner has undergone judicial custody for about 5 days, i.e. from 07.07.2019 to 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.764 of 2026 Dated 21.09.2026 12.07.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in jail and judicial custody for about 14 days. The petitioner is aged about 50 years, and he has been suffering from some health issues, and he is brought today to this Court with the assistance of his wife. As seen from the medical reports filed by him, it is clear that he has been suffering from urological problems and has undergone major surgery, and to that effect, a catheter is fixed through the urethra to the petitioner. The petitioner has been suffering from severe health ailments. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Criminal Revision Case, by confirming the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court for the charges under Sections 304-A and 337 of ‘the I.P.C.’, and Section 134(a) (b) read with 187 and Section 146 read with 196 of ‘the M.V.Act’, by reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner to the extent of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the fine amount imposed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 21.09.2026 DRNR/PVS 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.764 of 2026 Dated 21.09.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.764 of 2019 Dated: 21.09.2026 DRNR/PVS