THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1043 of 2004 Dated:17.06.2011 Between: B. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana ……Appellant/A.2 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.1043 of 2004 ORDER: This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against judgment dated 27.10.2003 delivered by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada in C.C.92 of 2002 convicting the revision petitioner /A.2 under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C for offence punishable under Section 7(1)(b) of Immoral Traffic (P) Act, 1956 but releasing him on Probationof good conduct for a period of one year on executing bond for Rs.5,000/- with sureties with a direction to keep peace and maintain good behaviour but however, releasing him on maintaining good conduct for a period of one year, applying the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 04.11.2001 from 21.00 hours till 5.11.2001 at 7.00 hours, A.1 acted as Dy. S.S. while A.2 as Sr. Y.P.C at Bhimavaram Jn.R.S. A3 is a resident of Bhimvaram and is living by doing prostitution. A.1 and A.2 carried on prostitution with A.3 by giving money at ESM’s Rest room situated under the same roof of the office of on duty Dy.S.S. of Bhimavaram Jn.R.S which is a public place. Further, on the relevant day and time A.1 being in-charge of Bhimavaram Jn.R.S. premises wilfully carried on prostitution knowingly allowing A2 for doing prostitution with A.3 at the same place. On 4.11.2001 the Inspector of Police, Rajahmundry on information about the prostitution that was going on in the above said restroom of the Bhimavaram Jn. R.S gave necessary instructions upon which the Sub-Inspector of Police i.e., P.W.4 conducted raid on the above said place and seized cash of Rs.340/- from them in the presence of mediators. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.W.2 and M.Os.1 to 4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the court below convicted the appellant/A.2 under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C, whereas however, released him on maintaining good conduct for a period of one year, applying the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act as referred. In spite of posting the matter under the caption of ‘for orders’, no representation has been made on behalf of the revision petitioner. Heard learned Public Prosecutor. 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 the court below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and hence there is no reason to interfere with the findings given by the court below. Accordingly, 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.1043 of 2004 Date:17.06.2011 Gk.