Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010101712019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 361/2019 Between: 1. K.SANJEEVA REDDY, S/O. K. CHINNAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. S.K.D. COLONY, ADONI TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, Through Sub Inspector of Police, Adoni III P.S., Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 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 29.03.2017 in Crl.A.No.75 of 2017 on the file of the 2 learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, wherein and whereby conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni vide order dated 28.02.2017 in C.C.No.412 of 2010 was confirmed. The learned Trial Court convicted the Petitioner/Accused No.1 for the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) for six months simple imprisonment and imposed Rs.500/- fine, and the Petitioner was convicted for the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the D.P.Act.,’) for six months simple imprisonment and imposed Rs.500/- fine. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the grounds of revision submits that the Petitioner got filed divorce petition in M.C.No.1375 of 2010 in Bengaluru Court and that petition was decreed ex-parte on 07.03.2012. The said ex-parte order and decree remained unchallenged. In revision cases the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses before the learned Trial Court cannot be appreciated. It is further volunteered that the Petitioner would additionally be fined to an amount of Rs.20,000/- as a measure of penance. 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. 3 4. 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. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the order in Crl.A.No.75 of 2017 dated 29.03.2019, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. 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 No.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 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 4 jurisdiction under revision be legitimately invoked, otherwise, judicial restraint must prevail. 8. 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 of justice is manifest. Absent such exceptional circumstances, judicial discipline mandates deference to the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 9. 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, 2AIR 1993 SC 1126 3AIR 2002 SC 2229 5 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 subordinate courts, 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. 10. 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 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 6 empowered to evaluate the evidence and analyze it and come to a just conclusion. 11. 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. 12. In view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, confirming the conviction for the charges under section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 4 of ‘the D.P.Act.,’ 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.20,000/- 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 necessary follow up steps. Mark a copy of this 4 AIR 1979 SC 1360 5 (1999) 7 SCC 604 7 order to the learned Trial Court. On deposit of the fine amount, the de-facto complainant is at liberty to withdraw the same. 13. 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: 16.06.2026 VTS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No