IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO : 752 of 2010 (Criminal Revision case under Section:_______ against the Judgment in NO : dated ______ on the file of the Court of the to call for the record pertaining to CC.No. 80/2005 on the file of the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala and consequently sentence the respondent/Accused by imposing imprisonment under Section 324 IPC on modification of orders of trial court, preferred against the order in CC 80 2005 dated ______ on the file of the Court of the ) Between: Vangapati Peda Sreenu, S/o. Peda Kondaiah, R/o. Bhavanarushipet, Thotavaripalem (V), Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Vangapati China Kondiah, S/o. Venkaiah, R/o. Bhavanarushipet, Thotavaripalem (V), Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. 2 Nakirikanti Venkata Rao, S/o. Kondaiah, R/o. Bhavanarushipet, Thotavaripalem (V), Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. 3 Vangapati Sivaiah, S/o. China kondaiah, R/o. Bhavanarushipet, Thotavaripalem (V), Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. 4 State of A.P., rep by its PUblic Prosecutor, S/o. Venkaiah, through I Town Police Station, Chirala, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENT(S Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SRINIVASULU KURRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: PSR, J. Crl.R.C.No. 752 of 2010 Judgment: This revision is filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant questioning the inadequacy of the sentence of fine of Rs.3000-00 each, imposed on Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein for the offence under section 324 IPC and the sentence of fine of Rs.3000-00 imposed on the first respondent for the offence under section 324 read with 34 IPC, by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala in C.C.No.80 of 2005. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed on respondent Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be said to be inadequate. There are no grounds to admit the revision, even. 4. The Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:20—04—2010. *BVS