1 APHC010516002010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 754 OF 2010 Between: 1. KONAGALA NAGAMALLESWARI, W/O.VENKATARAMAIAH EX.BRANCH POST MASTER BALUSUPALEM, CHERUKUPALLE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the learned XI Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Guntur at Tenali in Crl.A.No.304/2005 dt.15-09-2006 by confirming the Judgment passed in C.C.No.54/2003 dt.19-07-2005 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, FAC I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repalle, Guntur District. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1542 OF 2009 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 condone the delay of 931 days in filing the present Criminal Revision Case against the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.304/2005 dt.15-9-2006 on the file of the XI Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Guntur at Tenali by 2 confirming the Judgment passed in C.C.No.54/2003 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, FAC I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repalle, Guntur District. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K RAMA KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order : The instant Criminal Revision Case preferred against the Judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Trial Court, who recorded the conviction and sentence against the present Petitioner under Section 409 of IPC. It appears from the record that the present Petitioner was a Branch Post Master. Charge has been framed against her under Section 409 of IPC for misappropriation of government fund. 2. The Criminal Case being C.C.No. 54 of 2003 was posted for trial before learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court after receiving the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the documents found the Petitioner to be guilty for the offences punishable under Section 409 of IPC and passed an order of conviction as follows:- 13. In the result, the accused found guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 409 IPC and convicted u/sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C. When asked about the quantum of sentence, the accused submitted that she is having husband and two children and her family will be disturbed and subjected to full troubles. The accused is a woman and PW.1 the defacto complainant stated she already remitted the misappropriated amount. Taking into consideration of above facts, the court is of the view some lenient view is required in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the accused is convicted for the 3 offence u/sec. 409 of IPC and she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the raising of court and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo S.I for a period of two months. As the imprisonment is only till the raising of the court, as the accused has not undergone any remand period, she is not entitled for any set off of imprisonment. When informed about her right of appeal on this Judgment, the accused stated that she is having means to engage a counsel.” 3. It appears that the Petitioner being aggrieved by an order of conviction filed the Criminal Appeal being Crl.A.No.304 of 2005, which was also dismissed confirming the order of conviction. Hence, the instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred. 4. At the outset, it appears from impugned sentence that Accused/ Petitioner was imprisoned till the raising of the Court and a fine of Rs.5,000/, in default to under Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. The record of the Trial Court i.e synopsis in the Judgment (Page No.10 of material paper) reflected that the Accused was present before the Trial Court at the time of passing of the Judgment till rising of the Court and also paid a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with the office of learned Trial Court on the same day. Entire conduct of the Petitioner shows that she had already undergone sentence and order of punishment of fine. If an order under challenge before this Court has already been undergone, there is nothing left to decide the issue. Hence, the instant Criminal Revision Case is appears to be infructuous. 5. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is hereby dismissed as infructuous. 4 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date: 12.03.2026 KK 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 754 OF 2010 12.03.2026 KK