IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYEIGHT DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 253 of 2005 Between: Kondapalli Ravi Kumar … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Aravala Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 253 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, (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2000 dated 7-2-2005 confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of one year to six months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under section 304-A of IPC imposed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam in CC.No. 127 of 2000, dated 20-11-2000. 2. The petitioner was tried for the offences punishable under section 304-A and 337 of IPC. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam found the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under section 304-A and 337 of IPC. The learned Magistrate sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under section 304-A of IPC. Since the petitioner is sentenced for major offence, no separate sentence is imposed under section 337 of IPC. On appeal, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence inflicted by the learned Magistrate as stated hereinabove. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the courts below have concurrently held against the petitioner and he confine his arguments only with regard to the quantum of sentence and prayed this court to take a lenient view . 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. It is evident from the record that both the courts below have concurrently held against the petitioner and there are no reasonable grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings passed by the courts below. Considering the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the conviction inflicted by both the courts below are confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment for the offences under section 304-A of IPC is modified to that of fine. The petitioner is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) for the offence under section 304-A of IPC apart from the fine which he already paid in the trial court. The said fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 6. Subject to the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 28-10-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 253 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 83 Date: 28-10-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L