1 APHC010369082015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1663/2015 Between: 1. SHAIK RAFI, S/O. ABDUL MUNAF, AGED 36 YEARS, TRANSPORT BUSINESS, NALLAJARLA, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP REP PP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1663/2015 O R D E R: 1. None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. Today, the matter is being listed under the caption “For Dismissal”. 2. It appears that against the finding of an order of conviction and sentence passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur in CCNo.256 of 2013 dated 01.09.2014 which was affirmed by the appellate Court i.e., IX Additional Sessions Judge, at Kovvur in Criminal Appeal No.170 of 2014 dated 21.07.2015 for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred. 3. I have perused the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 4. On careful observation of the findings, it appears that learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (01) year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one (01) month for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In the judgment of conviction it also mentioned the evidentiary value of the witnesses in detail and the documents placed by the parties has also been scanned. 3 5. On careful perusal of the observation of the learned Trail Court, it appears that the Trial Court has specifically decided the grounds for convicting the Petitioner and he has also decided on the point for determination. The same was affirmed by the appellate court also. Hence, I find no illegality and impropriety in the order itself. 6. Considering the same, I find no justification to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 7. Under the above observation, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merit. The order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during pendency of the instant Criminal Revision Case is hereby revoked. Since the Petitioner is not present before this Court, let a copy of this order be served upon the learned Trial Court. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA KS Dated:8.01.2026. 4 167 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1663 OF 2015 DATED:08.01.2026. KS