THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.992 of 2004 DATED: 09-08-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner-accused, questioning the judgment, dated 24-02-2004, passed in Crl.A.No.540 of 2001 by the learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, modifying the judgment, dated 11-10-2001, in C.C.No.22 of 2000 on the file of the learned I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, whereby the petitioner herein-accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.12.1999, during morning hours Kolakaluri Ravi Babu-P.W.1 attended a marriage in the house of his paternal uncle at Chinaravuru and while he was talking with his friend- Amrutharaju, petitioner herein went there in a drunken state, enquired about the said Amrutharaju and an altercation took place between them. Thereafter, P.W.1 left the function and went to Dimmela center in Chinaravuru of Tenali and joined his friends in making electrical decoration of the Church in the eve of Christmas festival and at about 2.30 p.m. the petitioner herein also went there and picked up quarrel with P.W.1 and beat him with an iron rod on his head as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries on his face, head and under the right eye. P.Ws.2, 3 and others, who witnessed the incident, took him to hospital. Based on the statement given by P.W.1 the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.199 of 1999 and after completion of investigation the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.22 of 2000. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 4. Having analyzed the entire evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. As against the same, petitioner herein filed Crl.A.No.540 of 2001 and the learned Sessions Judge while concurring with the said finding that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence, however taking a lenient view restricted the said sentence only to fine amount and thus set aside the said sentence of two years. The same is questioned in this revision. 5. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a bank employee and he has not committed any offence. In the light of the said submission, this Court looked into the judgment impugned in this revision. Apparently, the Courts below have considered the evidence on record, both oral ad documentary, and held that the petitioner has committed the said offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. In fact, the lower appellate Court, taking into consideration that the petitioner is an employee of the State Bank of Hyderabad set aside the said sentence of two years and restricted the sentence only to fine. In my considered view, the said relief that has been granted by the lower appellate Court is sufficient. Of course, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a bank employee and if he is convicted or even if fine is imposed, it may affect his career. In my considered view, the said contention cannot be accepted. It is only in cases where moral turpitude is involved it can be said that it affects the career of the employees like the petitioner. Here is a case where the allegation against the petitioner is that he attacked the complainant, who was examined as P.W.1 and the said act cannot be said to be involving moral turpitude. Hence, I see no merits in this revision. 6. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 09th August, 2010. Tsy