The High Court · 2025

State of Telangana, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ..RespondenUComplainant Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K. Giridhar Raju Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. S. Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: OROER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADII}RIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISIO N GASE No.2348 0F 2016 ORDER This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 29'08'2016 in Crirninal Appeal No.692 of 2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") t;onfirming the judgment dated28.07.2016 in S.T'C'No'4940 of 2016 passed by the learned lV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short' "the trial Court').

2. Heard Mr.K.Giridhar Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public: Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State. Perused the record

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 22-07-2016 al 14"57 hours lnspector of Police, Hyderabad along with his staff' while conducting "Enforcement against Drunken Driving" at lmax Theater, randomly stopped one Two wheeler vr-'hicle bearing No.AP 09 CU 7042 driven by the accused and he was subjected toAlcoholTestwithBreathAnalyzerandtheprinteldresultofthe 2 JS.J Cd.R.C.No.2313 ot 2016 test shown the BAC bvel as 404 MG/100 ml, which has exceeded the pernrissible BAC tevel of 35mg/100 ml as mentioned in Section 185 (a) MV Act, signature of the aocused was obtained on reading slip as well as on the Challan, the BAC levels established that the accused has consumed alcohol more than the permissible limits and a petty case charge sheet was fibd in S.TC.No.4940 ot 2016 against the accused for the offence punishable u/s '185(a), of M.V.Act

4. The trial Court vide judgment dated 28.07.2016 in S.T.C.I,1o.4940 of 2016 found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Section 185 (a) of M.V.Act; convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) day. Aggrieled by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal

5. The appellate Court, vide impugned judgment, dismissed the Appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court, observing that neither the accused/appellant nor his Advocate appeared before the Court to make any submissions with regard 3 JS'J Crt.C.C.N'.?U& ol2O16 to the reduction of the sentence or with regard to setl:ing aside the order of the trial Court. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred the Present Revision.

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner cor tended that aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, lhe petitioner preferred an Appeal before the learned appellate Court' He further contended that the petitioner has also moved an application for suspension of the sentence passerl by the trial Court pending disposal and the learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 17.08.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.1765 of 2016 was pleased to suspend the sentence of imprisonment passe(l by the trial Court pending disposal of Appeal. Thereafter, ther Appeal was directed to be listed on 30.08.2016 and even in the "A" Diary the same was recorded, the petitioner and his coun'sel on record before the appellate Court were under the impre:;sion that the matter would be heard again on 30.08'2016 While so' on

30.08.2016, when the counsel for the petitioner on record before the appellate Court, went to the appellate Court for attending the matter, the counsel observed that the matter was not listed and after enquiring with the Court personnel, the cotlnsel came to know that the Appeal was dismissed on 29-18-2016 itself \- 4 JS.J Crl. R.C.l,lo. 23,,8 ol 201$ confirming the judgment of the trial Cowt. lt is further contended that after detaibd enquny, it came to light that fte matter was posted on 2248-2016 and thereafter on 26-O8-2016 and finally on 29-08-2016, on which date it was dismissed and the counsel on record brought the same to the notice of the appellate Court by way of a Memo, but the said Memo was returned by the Court as not maintainable.

7. Leamed counsel for the petitioner contended that the appellate Court, having been informed about the mistake committed by the Court staff with regard to recording the date of hearing, ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner for submitting his argurnents in the Appeal. Fle further contended that the appellate Court ought to have

8. considered the contentions of the petitioner in a proper perspective and ought to have acquitted the petitioner

9. Fle further contended that the appellate Court ought to have considered the contention of the petitioner that upon misguidance of the Police personnel that he would be sentenced to only a fine if he pleaded guilty or otherwise he would have to face lengthy, vexatious prosecution proceedings, the petitioner -i 1 I 5 JS.J C .R.C.No.2348 of 2016 had pleaded guilty before the Court below, thoul;h he has not comrnitted the offence

10. He further contended that the trial Court having recorded that it is the petitioner's first offence, ought to have at least considered for applying the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act

11. He further contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidencr: available on record 'in proper perspective and passed their respective judgments. Therefore, he seeks to allow this Revisi,rn

12. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the tnal Court as well as the appellate Court, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, rightly passed their respective judgments and interference of this Court is rrot warranted Therefore, she seeks to dismiss this Revision

13. Upon careful consideration of the material available on record, the trial Court observed that the admissi')n of accused was voluntary, in view of the nature of offence and submission of the accused, the trial Court found that the story of prosecution 6 JS.J Crl.R.C.No.231E ot m16 was believable; there was no vvhisper with regard to denial of the offence by the petitioner, whhh contravened Section 185 (a) of MV Act. Stating thus, the trial Court rendered its judgment' the appeal, the appellate Cou(, upon 14. ln re-appreciating the evidence available on record, found that neither the appellant not his Advocate appeared before the Court to make any submissions with regard to the reduction of the sentence or with regard to the setting aside the order of the trtal Court and opined that the judgment of the trial Court was sustainable. Therefore, the appellate Court rendered its judgment

15. ln the present case on hand, the trial Court as well as appellate Court concunently held that the petitioner was guilty of the offence under Section 185(a) of MV Act, which finding' in my considered view, does not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr'P C Hence l find no reason to interfere with the well considered iudgments passed by both the Courts.

16. lt is pertinent to note that, by order dated 19.09 2016' this Court suspended the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the |l - \ 7 JS.J Crl-R.C.No.2 A o12016 petitioner and directed his release on bail upon execution of a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties fcr a like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned lV Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Court), Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

17. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court is of the considered opinion that prior to dismissing the appeal filed by the petitionrlr_accused and confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, the learned appellate Court ought to ha.ye granted one more opportunity to the petitioner_accused by passing a conditional order. Be that as it may, it is evident from the record that the petitioner-accused admitted his guilt befc re the learned trial Court ln vrew thereof, while upholding the r:onviction, this Court finds it just and appropriate to modify the sentence imposed against the petitioner-accused to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

18. With the above observations, the Criminal Rervision Case is disposed of. I JS.J Ctl.R.C-No.n4A of 2O16 The nriscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed To, ,TTRUE COPY" n sd/- T. VIJAY KUMAR PUTYREGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 2 4 1 ill*u*+il'#:*"ffi Fs#fi lr,##nTff:":" Blt"%t?i [1'X Girkrhar Raju, Advocate toPrcl Two CD CoPies 5 6 Karn/gh ?r HIGH COURT DATED:2310612025 I ) -7_--_--i__-- c ..r1 ,,.,.,, /, t12 sEP 206 \ .,|, ORDER CRLRC.No.2348 of 2016 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE (+- .L {- $. \4