IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 585 of 2005 Between: Janarajupalli Ramesh … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M. Viswanadham Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 585 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Srikakulam, in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2001, dated 05-4- 2005 confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsannapeta, in CC.No. 76 of 1999, dated 02-7-2001. 2. The petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under section 304-A and 337 of IPC. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty for the said offence. The petitioner was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and further found guilty for the offence under section 337 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and directed to run the sentences concurrently. On appeal, the learned II-Additional and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Srikakulam, on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument only with regard to the quantum of sentence and prayed mercy of this court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor representing the State. This Court perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not see any illegality in the order of conviction recorded by both the courts below and the same is confirmed, but however, taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment inflicted by the both the courts below is modified to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. However, the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand only) for the offence under section 304- A of IPC within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in addition to the fine amount paid by the petitioner in the trial Court. 6. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision is disposed of. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 22-10-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 585 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 95 Date: 22-10-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L