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. 523 of 2005 Between: Mahanti Eswar Rao … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P. Giri Krishna Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 523 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram in Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2004 dated 15-2-2005 confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajpathinagaram, in CC.No. 19 of 2003, dated 06-8-2004. 2. The petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty for the said offence. The petitioner was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the conviction and also the sentence of fine imposed against the petitioner. But the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for one year is converted and modified into fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner-accused. 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 illegality in the order of conviction recorded by both the courts below and the same is confirmed, as both the courts below gave concurrent findings and cogent reasoning for their conclusion. This Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings by invoking revisional jurisdiction. 6. The Criminal Revision fails and accordingly the same is dismissed at the threshold. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 22-10-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 523 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 98 Date: 22-10-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L