IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 642 of 2005 Between: Parchur Chandrasekhara Rao (A-1) … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S.Narendranath Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 642 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, in Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2002 dated 15-4-2005 confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili, in CC.No. 137 of 1996, dated 25-11-2002. 2. The petitioner (A-1) was tried for the offence punishable under section 3k) i), 13 (1) and 18 (i) [c] read with section 29 (1 (a) of Insecticides Act, 1968. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner (A-1) guilty for the said offence. The petitioner (A-1) was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and sent6enced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under each of three counts and in default simple imprisonment under each of three counts. On appeal, the learned II- Additional and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Ongole, on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate in respect of the petitioner (A-1). Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument only with regard to the quantum of sentence and prayed mercy of this court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor representing the State. This Court perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by both the courts below and the same is confirmed, but however, taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment inflicted by the both the courts below is modified to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. However, the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/- (Rs. Six thousand only) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in addition to the fine amount paid by the petitioner in the trial Court. 6. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision is disposed of. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 22-10-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 642 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 96 Date: 22-10-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L