The State of Andhra Pradesh v. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2010fCRLRCMP. NO: 2249 OF 20101

The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT I.A. NO: 1 OF 2010fCRLRCMP. NO: 2249 OF 20101 Petition under Section 397(1) R/w 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail, by suspending the sentence passed in CrI.A.No. T25 of 2010, on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge at Guntur, dt. 29-06-2010. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1527 of 2010 ORDER: The Revision has been preferred under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) against the judgment dated

29.06.2010 in Crl.A.No.125 of 2010 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder confirming the judgment dated

25.12.2010 in C.C.No.60 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, finding the revisionist guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and convicted the revisionist under Section 255 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri Srinivas Rao Utia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the grounds of revision, argued that the learned Courts below ought to have held that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the Petitioner as P.W.1 relative the deceased and also Complainant, so he is an interested witness and his evidence cannot be relied on as it is untrustworthy; without examining the de-facto Complainant the Trial Court marked and relied on a F.I.R; P.W.1 failed to identify the number of the and make of the car; and that urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case.

4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the revisionist at the time of the alleged offence was aged about 32 years and was a driver; nearly 18 years have 2 m Dr.YLR(<^^ Crl.R.C.No.1527 of 2010 Dated 02,05.2025 passed by; he had suffered a lot of trauma and mental agony; now he is aged about 50 years; he has been suffering from seven aliments due to post Covid- 19 complications and also renal severe problems and requested to consider the case of the revisionist sympathetically and requested to impose sentence which he had already undergone for a period of 91 days, while volunteering that the sentence of payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- may be imposed as a measure of penance and urged to dispose of the revision.

5. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the Petitioner suffered concurrent conviction for the offence under Section 304(A) of the I.P.C.; there are no irregularities much less material irregularities; no flagrant miscarriage of justice; no manifest error on point of law and that urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

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 judgment in CrI.A.No. 125 of 2010 dated 29.06.2010, passed by the learned I Additional District and 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?”

8. It is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court inBindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of BiharVhereinat Paragraph Nos. 12 & 13 it is held as under; "... It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may but decisions of this Court have laid down the be justified, parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by tljb High Court (2002) 6 see 650 3 Dr.YLR.J ■ Crl.R.C.No.1527 of 2010 Dated 02.05.20^5 under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. ...

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. the absence of manifest illeoalltv resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. ” In

9. This Court in S. Venkat Reddy v. State of A.P^ held at para-No.3 as under: “3. It is settled law that when a conviction is recorded by the Trial Judge and upheld by the first Appellate Court, re-appreciation of the evidence cannot be done unless there is miscarriage of justice."

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand^ at para-No.21,22 and 23 held as under; “21. In embarking upon the minutest re-examination of the whole evidence at the learned Judge of the High Court was totally the revisional stage, oblivious of the self-restraint that he was required to exercise in a revision under Section 397 CrPC. On behalf of the accused, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice Sabharwa!) is a party i.e. Ram Briksh Singh v. Ambika Yadav'’. Theat w/as the case in which the High Court interfered in revision because material evidence was overlooked by the courts below.

22. The revisional court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the appellate court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 401 CrPC. Section 401 CrPC is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise of power of all powers of an appellate superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. Section 397 CrPC confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may by, if necessary, court, “for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court” It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or the Sessions Section 401 CrPC conferring Court can exercise all appellate powers. powers of an appellate court on the revisional court is with the above limited 2 2004(1)ALD (Crl.) 357 (AP) ^ (2004) 7 see 659 '' (2004) 7 see 665 4 Dr.YLR^il^ Crl.R.C.No,1527 of2010 Dated 02.05.2025 purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 CrPC, read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power

23. On this aspect, it is sufficient to refer to an rely on the decision of this Court in Dull Chand \/. Delhi Admin^ in which it is observed thus- (SCC p 651 para 5) y- > . The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore. It would have been justified in refusing to reappreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge ivas correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying Itself that there w/as evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. ”

11. The learned Trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 9 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to EX.P10. P.W.1, who was a direct witness to the accident deposed that while the deceased was going on his cycle the vehicle in question dashed him resulting severe injuries sustained by the deceased. P.W.1 identified the Petitioner as driver of the car. One constable and P.W.1 shifted deceased to Nidubrolu Hospital and later to Government General Hospital, Guntur. It not suggested to P.W.1 that the Petitioner were not driving the offending car.

12. P.W.1 testified that when he was at the tyre puncture shop on the other side of the road, the car stopped and the deceased fell down, on that he rushed to the spot. P.W.7 also confirmed that the Petitioner was driver of the car at the time of the accident, as Petitioner worked as driver on his Indica car. The P.W.7 stated that the Petitioner informed P.W.7 over telephone that in the mid night accident took place near bus depot, Ponnuru and one cyclist received certain injuries. On next day P.W.7 came to Police Station and found ^(1975) 4 see 649 5 Dr.YLR.J • Crl.R.C.No.1527 of 2010 Dated 02.05.202^ the car damaged. It was P.W.7, who handed over the Petitioner and documents of the vehicle to the Police. It is not suggested to P.W.7 that there are inimical terms in between Petitioner and P.W.7. The learned Trial Court rightly pointed out that there was nothing adverse for P.W.7 to speak falsehood against Petitioner.

13. P.W.7 - Motor Vehicle Inspectortestified that there were no mechanical defects in the car. Therefore, it can be understood that the Petitioner drove the car rashly and negligently. The learned Trial Court rightly found the Petitioner guilty, and the learned Appellate Court also confirmed the same. There was no misreading of the evidence in finding the revisionist guilty by the trial court and the Appellate Court. There are no perverse findings. The learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and found the revisionist guilty of the offences charged. There are no grounds to interfere with the conviction.

14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar® it isheld thatright 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 Bihar^ The right of speedy trial of the revisionist is being violated because of delay in disposal of the revision within a ®AIR 1979 SC 1360 ^(1999) 7 see 604 6 Dr.YLR^ Crl.R.C.No.1527 of2010 ' Dated 02.05.2025 reasonable time. Therefore, the delay is also one of the grounds to modify the impugned judgment.

15. As stated supra, the occurrence took place about 18 years ago. The revisionist has been facing mental agony and trauma of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 18 years. Therefore, it is appropriate and proportionate that the sentence is required to be reduced to the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the revisionist.

16. The learned Trial Court imposed six months of simple imprisonment which was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. The age of the Petitioner is about 50 years. He has been suffering from severe health complications to his lungs because of post Covid-19 complications and also severe renal problems. He underwent more than 91 days in incarceration. There are no previous or subsequent adverse antecedents against the Petitioner, reported by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the revisionist volunteered that the revisionist would pay Rs.2,000/- measure of penance. The said voluntary statement is recorded and approved. In view of the obtaining peculiar facts and cicircumstances of the case the as a

17. revision is disposed of, maintaining the conviction, while reducing the to which the revisionist had already undergone sentence and imposing the sentence of payment of additional fine of Rs.2,000/-. No order as to costs. The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur is directed to take ^ecessary follow-up steps. 7 Dr.YLR.J' Crl.R.C.No.1527 of 20.10 Dated 02.05.2025 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR r SECTION OFFICER

1. The Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Ponnur.

2. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge, at Guntur District.

3. One CC to SRI. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CC to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT]

5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.

6. Three CD Copies Chp AL HIGH COURT DATE 0:02/05/2025 I.V ORDER CRLRC.No.1527of2010 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE