APHC010424232019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1301/2019 Between: 1. MUNIPALLI JAKARAIAH,, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 55 YEARS, GOVADA VILLAGE, AMRTHALURU MANDAL, GUNTUR. 2. BANDELA CHETHAIAH,, S/O. VENKAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS, GOVADA VILLAGE, AMRTHALURU MANDAL, GUNTUR. 3. AMARTHALURI CHINNARI BABU,, S/O. VASANTHA RAO,AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, GOVADA VILLAGE, AMRTHALURU MANDAL, GUNTUR. 4. NADAKURTHI VARA KUMAR,, S/O. APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, GOVADA VILLAGE, AMRTHALURU MANDAL, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A. P. , AMARAVATHI ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1301 of 2019 Dated 05.08.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: 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 11.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.488 of 2017 on the file of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 07.12.2017 passed in C.C.No.327 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, was confirmed, convicting the Petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’), and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. The Petitioners have already paid the fine amount while preferring the appeal. 2. Mr. S. Dilip Jairam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Marella Radha, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, while reiterating the grounds urged in the revision, submitted that the Petitioners had undergone incarceration for a period of 11 days. He further submitted that the alleged offence took place more than a decade ago. The Petitioners are coolies and illiterate persons. There are no previous similar antecedents reported against them. He, therefore, urged this Court to allow the Criminal Revision Case, as the Petitioners are willing to pay an additional fine of Rs.500/- each. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1301 of 2019 Dated 05.08.2026 3. Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, while opposing the Criminal Revision Case, submitted that this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record. He further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and that the learned Trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the Petitioners. He also contended that the learned Appellate Court, upon proper appreciation of the material available on record, rightly confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court and urged to dismiss the revision case. 4. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 5. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.488 of 2017 dated 11.12.2019, passed by the learned XI Additional District Sessions Judge, Guntur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 6. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5, who are present before this Court, were charged with the offence punishable under Section 353 of ‘the I.P.C’. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of the Petitioners, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. The learned Trial Court, upon an elaborate appreciation of the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the Petitioners as stated above. The learned Appellate Court also duly considered the contentions advanced by the Petitioners in the appeal and, finding no merit therein, confirmed the 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1301 of 2019 Dated 05.08.2026 judgment of conviction and sentence. A perusal of the grounds raised in the present revision discloses that they primarily relate to the appreciation of evidence. It is well settled that this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate the evidence as if sitting in a second appeal. 7. While deciding a Criminal Revision Case filed against acquittal of accused, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1wherein at Paragraph No.13 it is held as under: “13. ... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla2 at Paragraph No.10 held as under: “The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr.P.C., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Govt. has o right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP3, at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 2AIR 1951 SC 196 3AIR 1962 SC 1788 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1301 of 2019 Dated 05.08.2026 State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce. or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles.” 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. Therefore, appreciation of the evidence is not practically possible and feasible. 11. This Court does not find any material irregularity, illegality, or miscarriage of justice in the judgments of the Courts below. Accordingly, the conviction of the Petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 353 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is confirmed. However, with regard to the sentence, it is pertinent to note that the Petitioners have no previous convictions for any similar 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1301 of 2019 Dated 05.08.2026 offence, and there are no similar adverse antecedents reported against them. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are aged about 65 years, Petitioner No.3 is aged about 55 years, and Petitioner No.4 is aged about 47 years. Further, the alleged offence occurred more than a decade ago. The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The expression "speedy trial" includes not only the stages of investigation and trial but also the expeditious disposal of appeals and revisions. Therefore, the prolonged pendency of these Criminal Revision Cases for nearly fifteen years is a relevant mitigating circumstance while considering the quantum of sentence. The law on this aspect has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar4. This right includes speedy disposal of appeals. 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. 12. The Petitioners had undergone the incarceration for a period of 4 days in Sub-jail in Tenali and 7 days in District Jail in Guntur. Thus, they had undergone 11 days incarceration. 13. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the age of the Petitioners, absence of previous criminal antecedents, the long lapse of time since the occurrence, and the period of incarceration already undergone by them, this Court is of the considered view 4 Air 1979 SC 1360 5 2000 (1) BLJR 37 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1301 of 2019 Dated 05.08.2026 that the ends of justice would be met by maintaining the conviction while modifying the substantive sentence. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of confirming the conviction of the Petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 353 of ‘the I.P.C’. However, the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the period of incarceration already undergone by the Petitioners. In addition thereto, each of the Petitioners shall pay an additional fine of Rs.500/- before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default of payment of the additional fine, each of the Petitioners shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 05.08.2026 KMS 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1301 of 2019 Dated 05.08.2026 103 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:1301 of 2019 Date: 05.08.2026 KMS