IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 419 of 2005 Between: Mannem Peda Seshareddy … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V. Narayana Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 419 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2001 dated 27-1-2005 confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Nellore district in CC.No. l8 of 1997, dated 09- 7-2001. 2. The petitioner (A-1) was tried for the offences punishable under section 326 read with section 34 of IPC. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner (A-1) guilty for the offence under section 325 of IPC and A-2 found guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 IPC. The petitioner (A-1) was sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three years and directed to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months. On appeal, the learned II-Additional and Sessions Judge, Nellore, 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) and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to one year from three years while maintaining fine imposed by the learned Magistrate for the offence under section 325 of IPC. The conviction for the offence under section 323 of IPC against A-2 is confirmed but the sentence is modified by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment of six months and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 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.2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand only) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, apart from 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. 21-10-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 419 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 123 Date: 01-10-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L