THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1723 & 1731 OF 2002 COMMON ORDER: 1 The Inspector of Police, C.I.D. East Godavari District filed charge sheet against the accused under section 420 of IPC in Cr.No. 3 of 1996 of Harbour L & O P.S. Visakhapatnam. Brief facts are that the accused was originally native of Gunadala of Vijayawada but was working as Assistant Stock Verifier in the Post Trust, Visakhapatnam. On an allegation that the accused does not belong to Konda Kapu caste, but belongs to Kapu caste, and that he fraudulently obtained caste certificate dated 18.11.1995 from the M.R.O. Ichapuram, Srikakulam District, the Vigilance Officer, Visakhapatnam Port Trust made preliminary enquiry about the caste of the accused and found that the accused belongs to Kapu caste but not Konda Kapu caste and accordingly sent a letter to the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Hyderabad for enquiry. In that connection a case in Cr.No.3 of 1996 for the offences punishable under sections 182 and 420 of IPC. During the course of investigation it is also revealed that the accused does not belong to Konda Kapu Caste, but belongs to Kapu caste and that by producing a false caste certificate the accused secured a job as Assistant Stock Verifier which was purely reserved for S.T. candidate and deprived a S.T. Candidate in securing legitimate appointment and thus the accused is liable for punishment for the above said offences. The learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam took the case on file under section 420 of IPC. 2 The trial court after trial found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC, but, however, taking a lenient view and by applying the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, released the accused on probation of good conduct after due admonition under section 3 of the said Act. 3 The accused questioned the said judgment dated 29.11.2001 passed by the trial court before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, vide Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2002. However, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge dismissed the said appeal by concurring with the finding given by the trial court. 4 Aggrieved by the finding of the trial court in releasing the accused by applying the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act instead of sentencing him to jail, the State preferred Criminal Revision Case No.1723 of 2002 and aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court in confirming the judgment of the trial court the accused preferred Criminal Revision Case No.1731 of 2002. Hence these two revisions are disposed of by this common order. 5 Heard both sides. 6 As seen from the judgment passed by the trial court, no doubt, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC for which he was tried. The said finding was confirmed by the appellate court. This court, on perusal of the entire material available o record also finds that the said finding of both the courts below needs no interference. But, the trial court taking the fact that the accused served in defence and was awarded with so many medals for his meritorious service into consideration, instead of sentencing him to jail, released him on maintaining peace and good behaviour as provided for under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The appellate court also took the same perspective, which in my considered opinion needs no interference. Further, the revision filed by the accused i.e. Crl.R.C.No.1731 of 2002, in my considered view, is not maintainable for the reason that Section 397 Cr.P.C. prohibits a second revision. For that reason the Criminal Revision filed by the accused i.e. Crl.R.C.No.1731 of 2002 is dismissed on the ground of non maintainability. 7 Accordingly these two Criminal Revisions are dismissed. ----------------- Kvsn 15.07.2010