Date of reserved for orders : -- Date of pronouncement : 18.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010006382020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE 18th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 21/2020 Between: 1. UMMADI VENKATESWARLU, S/O. SUBBARAO,HINDU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. LAKSHMIPURAM, OPP. TO BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHNAGE STONEHOUSEPCIT, NELLORE(TOWN). SPSR NELLORE DT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Sub Inspector of Police, Buchireddypalem P.S. Through Public Prosecutor, High Court Bldgs, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T C KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) challenging the judgment dated 02.01.2020 in Crl.A.No.129 of 2017 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs and S.Ts. (POA) Act- cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, wherein and whereby the Court has slightly reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years to two years for the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) while confirming the sentence of payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- ordered by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur in C.C.No.109 of 2010 vide judgment dated 09.03.2017 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner awhile reiterating the grounds of the Revision submits that the Petitioner/Accused No.1 was in the judicial custody for a period of one week during trial and one week during appeal period. In total, he was in the judicial custody for a period of fourteen days. The marriage of the Petitioner with de-facto complainant was performed in the year 2008. In the year 2009, the Petitioner and the de-facto complainant was blessed with one daughter, who is not at the edge of her majority. The Petitioner has been working as typist in BSNL Telephone Exchange. PW.1/de- facto complainant is M.Sc. B.Ed., holder and she is working as a teacher. 3 Nearly from 2009 onwards the Petitioner and the de-facto complainant have been residing separately. Except the Petitioner/Accused No.1 rest of the accused were acquitted by the learned Trial Court. 4. Alternatively, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the sentence of imprisonment of two years may be modified to additional fine of Rs.50,000/- as a measure of penance, inasmuch as the Petitioner has already undergone judicial custody for a period of fourteen days. This additional fine amount may be excluded from the fine amount already paid by the Petitioner and urged to dispose of the Criminal Revision Case in the interest of the justice as the right to get speedy trail of the petitioner is being frustrated. 5. Per contra, Mr. P.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the judgment of the learned Trial Court rightly passed the judgment confirming the conviction for the offence charged and urged to dismiss the revision case as there are no material irregularities, flagrant miscarriage of justice and misreading of the evidence. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the order in Crl.A.No.21 of 2020 dated 02.01.2020, passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs and S.Ts. (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 4 8. In adjudicating a Criminal Revision assailing concurrent findings of conviction, it is jurisprudentially imperative to advert to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar1, wherein the Court, at Paragraph 13, emphatically delineated the contours of revisional jurisdiction. It was observed that in the absence of demonstrable legal infirmity in the procedural framework or in the conduct of the trial, the High Court is bereft of justification to exercise its revisional powers. The Hon’ble Apex Court underscored that revisional authority is not a forum for re- appreciation or re-evaluation of evidence with a view to supplant the findings of the Trial Court. Only where there exists manifest illegality or palpable perversity culminating in grave miscarriage of justice, can the extraordinary jurisdiction under revision be legitimately invoked, otherwise, judicial restraint must prevail. 9. In the context of revisional scrutiny over concurrent findings of conviction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Appa Babu Ingale 2, at Paragraph No.2, has categorically circumscribed the ambit of interference by the High Court. The Court observed that ordinarily it is impermissible for the revisional Court to unsettle concurrent determinations of fact rendered by the subordinate Courts, particularly by embarking upon a fresh re-appreciation of evidence. The revisional jurisdiction, being supervisory in nature, is not intended to function as a second appellate forum, its invocation is justified only where glaring illegality, perversity, or miscarriage 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 2AIR 1993 SC 1126 5 of justice is manifest. Absent such exceptional circumstances, judicial discipline mandates deference to the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 10. In Jagannath Chowdhary v. Ramayan Singh3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while elaborating upon the ambit of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ lucidly articulated that such power is inherently discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised judiciously, never arbitrarily. Judicial discretion, as the Court emphasized, must be “informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and disciplined by system,” thereby confining its invocation to circumstances of glaring procedural defects, manifest errors of law, or flagrant miscarriage of justice. The revisional forum is not an appellate tribunal for re-scrutiny of evidence or substitution of possible alternative views, its application is restrictive, reserved for exceptional situations where correction of illegality or prevention of gross injustice is imperative. The Court further clarified that while the High Court retains supervisory authority over courts in district judiciary, both administratively and judicially, the jurisdictional sweep under Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ remains circumscribed. In the facts under consideration, the High Court was held to have transgressed its revisional limits by setting aside an acquittal and directing a fresh judgment, which constituted a significant departure from the normal course of revisional adjudication. 11. Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any 3AIR 2002 SC 2229 6 iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a second appellate court. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke it’s revisional power as a Second Appellate Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, Jagannath Chowdhary and Appa Babu Ingale supra. However, this Court is not denuded of its powers to examine whether judgments impugned are correct, legal and proper with respect to their findings, sentence or even judgment and there are any material irregularities. If there are manifest illegalities and interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of those manifest illegalities or to prevent a great miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to evaluate the evidence and analyze it and come to a just conclusion. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar4 it is held that right to speedy trial which includes hearing of the Appeal and Revision is part of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. In addition to the appeals the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar5. The right of speedy trial of the revisionist is being violated because of delay in disposal of the revision within a reasonable time. 4 AIR 1979 SC 1360 5 (1999) 7 SCC 604 7 13. As seen from the record, the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused has examined PWs.1 to 4. PWs.1 to 3 have supported the case of the prosecution. It is the version of the PW.1 that the Accused No.1 has demanded additional dowry. There is no perversity in the judgments passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court, there is no irregularity, hence, the conviction recorded for the charge under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is required to be confirmed. 14. With regard to the quantum of the sentence, record reveals that the Petitioner has undergone imprisonment of nearly fourteen days in the judicial custody. Petitioner had also paid Rs.5,000/- as ordered by the learned Appellate Court. The Petitioner and the de-facto complainant have been residing separately for quite long time. They have been blessed with a daughter, who is also at the edge of her majority. 15. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, by confirming the conviction for the charge under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ by the learned Appellate Court, while reducing the Petitioner to suffer imprisonment to which he already undergone, in addition to that the Petitioner shall pay Rs.50,000/- as a measure of penance to P.W.1/de-facto complainant/wife within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The fine amount shall be deposited before the Registrar (Judicial) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. The learned Trial Court is directed to take up 8 necessary follow up steps. Mark a copy of this order to the learned Trial Court. On deposit of the fine amount, the de-facto complainant is at liberty to withdraw the same. 16. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of in the terms stated above. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 18.06.2026 VTS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No