1 APHC010814442015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 16/2015 Between: 1. Y.MAHADEVA REDDY, G.D.NELLORE MANDAL.,, S/O. VENKATA REDDY, R/O. MOTHARANGANAPALLI, RANA NAIDUPALLI POST, G.D.NELLORE MANDAL. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP REP PP, rept. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and the State of AndhraPradesh. ...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 present this memorandum of grounds of criminal revision case against the judgment dated 02-01-2015 passed in Crl.A.No. 311 of 2011 on the file of the XI Additional Sessions Judge, of Piler, confirming the judgment dated 12-12-2011 passed in CC.No. 317 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler. IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 5 OF 2015 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 certified copy of the judgment passed in CC.No. 317 of 2 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler in the interest of justice. IA NO: 2 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 26 OF 2015 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 the sentence passed on 02-01-2015 in Crl.A.No. 311 of 2011 on the file of the XI Addl. Sessions Judge of Piler confirming the judgment dated 12-12-2011 passed in CC.No. 317 of 2004 on the file of the learned J.M.F.C. Piler, and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal ofthe above Crl.Rc. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 16/2015 The Court made the following ORDER: The Instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order of conviction sentence passed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court against the present petitioner where under the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 337, 338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code (For brevity ‘the I.P.C’) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, 1,000/- and undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (06) months respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Courts below are illegal and improper to record conviction against the any accused person. The learned courts below should have discussed about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In this case, the present petitioner being the driver of lorry was running over a highway and alleged to have been dashed a stationary Auto. Thereby, the PW.1 to PW.6 have injured and one person has expired in the hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in this case, the prosecution who have examined as many as 10 witnesses but the Motor Vehicle Inspector was not inspected, thereby the offending vehicle was not inspected, whether the accident was caused due to mechanical defects or not. 4 3. He further submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has not opined regarding the negligence or rashness of the present petitioner in causing such accident. He further submits that in the high way a heavy vehicles were running it must maintaining a minimum speed, the stationary Auto was not proved to be stationed in auto stand or bus stand. Thereby standing over National Highway whether heavy vehicles were moving itself a negligent. In this case such aspect was not considered, thereby the order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is aged about 50 years and dealing with the criminal trial diligentlyand considering the long pendency of the matter, the order of conviction may be converted. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised some objections and submits that the petitioner being the driver of a lorry not taking any precaution in driving the heavy vehicles. In this case, it has been proved by the evidence of PW.4 who are the eye witness as well as injured that the Auto was stationed at that time driver of the lorry i.e., the petitioner dashed suddenly from behind. The rashness and negligence has been well proved by the prosecution. In this case, the lorry driver, who is running heavy vehicle must have seen the stationed auto over the road. He submits that rough sketch as well as Investigation of the police has proved that there are skid marks over the road. Thus, it proves that the lorry was running in heavy speed inspite of applying brake, the lorry was dashed the stationary auto. It is further submits 5 that the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has carefully scanned the evidence on record and there is no illegality and impropriety. 6. Heard the learned counsels. Perused the impugned order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. It appears that the PW.1 to PW.5 are the passengers of Auto, who deposed that while PW.6 being auto driver stopped the auto to take some passengers, at that time the petitioner being the driver of the lorry suddenly dashed from behind, thereby they sustained severe injuries all over the body among those passengers, one person has succumbed to the injures in the hospital. It further appears that PW.6 is the Auto driver, who stated that, at the time of accident there was no drizzling and auto was stationed. In this particular case, even if, the Motor Vehicle Inspector was not examined on behalf of the prosecution. But it appears from the evidence of Investigating Officer that the present petitioner being the driver has applied sudden brake to stop the vehicle. The conduct of the present petitioner to stop the accident is well found. But the way he drove the vehicle ie., high speed is well effected as accident was occurred though he tried to stop the vehicle, the vehicle was high speed thus he could not avoided. However, it appears to me that the recording conviction and sentence on the basis of prosecution witnesses as well as the investigation of the investigating officer suffers no illegality ad impropriety. Thus the conviction and sentence is maintainable. However, the alleged accident happened in the year 2004, the petitioner being accused of the case was diligently attended Trials and he also filed Revision Case before this Court. The case is pending more than 20 6 years, the petitioner was attended. Aggrieved by the long pendency of the criminal litigation. 7. The provision under Section 304-A of I.P.C., provided punishment or conviction or sentence or both. In this particular case, considering the age of the petitioner and also considering the long pendency of the matter. In my view the conviction under Section 304-A of I.P.C is converted into fine. 8. On the above aspect, the order of conviction under section 304-A of I.P.C against the present petitioner is hereby converted to fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).The petitioner is directed to pay the fine amount along with other fine amount already imposed to the learned Trial Court within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of passing of this order. 9. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:01.04.2026 SSA