THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1139 of 2004 Dated:17.06.2011 Between: Sheik Mohd Hussain ……Appellant And: State of A.P., rep. By its PP., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …..Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1139 of 2004 ORDER: This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against judgment dated 28.04.2004 delivered by the IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur in Crl.A.No.43 of 2002, confirming judgment delivered by I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repalle in C.C.No.226 of 2001, whereby the petitioner herein was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of it to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 17.10.2000 at about 6.30 p.m the accused driver of Jeep No.AP 7 V 3671 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner plying from Bhattiprolu to Kanagala and hit against the deceased concerned viz., Siva Babu who was coming on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.A.P.7 C 6060 near Addepalli Edge Mosque Centre on Bhattiprolue to Kanagala Main road, as a result of which, the deceased died at the spot. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined in all 7 witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and no witnesses were examined and no exhibits were marked on behalf of the defence. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the appellate court, the appellant herein has filed this revision. In spite of posting the matter under the caption of ‘for orders’, no representation has been made on behalf of the appellant. Heard learned Public Prosecutor. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to allow the petition? I have perused the record. On the perusal of the record, it is clear that both the courts below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with the findings given by both the courts below. But, the petitioner/accused has been attending various courts in connection with this case and he must have suffered consequently and in the process he also must have lost his valuable time and incurred lot of expenditure. Considering all the factors, the sentence is reduced to R.I for six months keeping intact the fine clause. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J. 17th June, 2011 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1139 of 2004 Date:17.06.2011 Gk.