IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.133 OF 2009 Between: Uppari Lingesh ... PETITIONER AND The State of A.P.represented by Public Prosecutor Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.133 OF 2009 ORDER: The accused No.1 in C.C.No.6 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni, who was convicted under Section 248 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) for the offence punishable under Section 419 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.45 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, is the revision petitioner herein. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.06.2002 at about 2:30 PM when the revision petitioner has impersonated the second accused-Sivakanth Raghupathi and was writing the Intermediate Supplementary Examination, P.W.1 the Principal and P.W.3 the Invigilator have prevented the accused; seized the hall ticket in the presence of mediators; thereafter, the accused was produced before police; P.W.5 registered a case and sent the accused for remand. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 419 IPC. 3. After appearance of the accused, charge for the offence punishable under Section 419 read with Section 109 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating evidence adduced against them and they denied the same to be true and correct. 6. The lower Court has found second accused not guilty of the offence and acquitted him. So far as the revision petitioner is concerned, he was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 419 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, which was confirmed in the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that having acquitted the second accused finding that there was no material to show that he entrusted the revision petitioner to write the examination or for the benefit of the second accused, the revision petitioner has impersonated him convicting the revision petitioner is illegal. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that on 12.06.2002, he was writing the examination. The fact that he was prevented by P.Ws.2 and 3 and he was taken to police station on the same day along with the seized hall ticket and was sent to remand is not in dispute and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly establishes the same. If really the revision petitioner was not writing the examination for somebody else, there is no need for him to present at the examination hall on that day. Therefore, it is quite clear that the revision petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 419 IPC and the evidence on record clearly establishes beyond doubt. 8. The learned counsel further contends that the second accused was acquitted and the revision petitioner is a student of B.Tech and his career is likely to be affected and therefore, the Court may apply the provisions under Section 360 Cr.P.C as it is a first offence. Evidently, from the nature of the incident, it is clear that it is an attempt made by the revision petitioner to help his friend. There is no personal benefit involved for the revision petitioner though his conduct is of blemishable and in a criminal nature. Taking into consideration the age of the revision petitioner and also his future, I feel that it is a fit case to apply provisions under Section 360 Cr.P.C as urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Therefore, the sentence of fine is set aside and the revision petitioner is directed to execute a bond for good behaviour for a period of one year to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case of failure to keep good behaviour, he has to receive the sentence as and when called for. The accused shall be under the supervision of Probationary Officer for a period of one year. 9. With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ____________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J OCTOBER 27, 2011. YVL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.133 of 2009 27.10.2011 YVL