IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1190 OF 2003 Between: Rachuri Anjaneyulu ..... Petitioner AND The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment, dated 19.06.2003, in Crl.A.No.180 of 2002, on the file of the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District, in confirming the conviction of the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”), but modifying the sentence from Rigorous Imprisonment for six months to Rigorous Imprisonment for five months, while maintaining the fine amount, recorded in the judgment, dated 21.10.2002, in C.C.No.1201 of 2000, by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, East and North, Hyderabad. 2. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C. by the trial Court, the accused pleaded guilty. Accepting the said plea, the accused was convicted under Section 252 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C. and sentenced as above. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence as above. Hence, this revision. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the accusation levelled against the petitioner was not stated to him in the language known to him; that the accused does not know what would be the consequences of admitting the guilt; that the accused was mislead, and therefore, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner. 4. The plea of the accused is voluntary. No appeal is maintainable except to the extent of legality or correctness of the sentence under Section 375 (b) Cr.P.C. 5. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be incorrect, illegal, or improper, normally this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. 6. There is no allegation that the accusation levelled against the accused was not stated to him in the language known to him and without knowing the consequences, the accused was made to admit the guilt. Therefore, the contention that the accusation levelled against the accused has not been properly explained to him is totally devoid of merit and wholly untenable. 6. The trial Court accepted the plea of the guilt of the accused as voluntary and there is no material to show that he was made to admit the guilt. Therefore, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 19.06.2003, in Crl.A.No.180 of 2002, on the file of the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Date: 13th November, 2009. KL