THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.312 OF 2009 ORDER: The revision is ﬁled against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.155 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad conﬁrming the conviction of the accused in Calendar Case No.1527 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for an oﬀence under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). 2. The case of prosecution is that on 05.07.2004 at about 12.30 P.M., the accused was driving the TATA Mobile vehicle bearing No.AP 22 A 7999 by talking on cell phone and when he reached Y-junction at Himayatnagar, the Police Constable (PW.1), who was on duty, objected it and when he was about to issue challan, the accused pushed him away. When PW.1 also tried to stop it, the accused made him to fell down, as a result of which, PW.1 received injuries. Thereafter, the accused was apprehended and a case was registered in Crime No.516 of 2004 for the oﬀences under Sections 332 and 353 IPC and investigated into. 3. The accused was charged for oﬀences under Sections 332 and 353 IPC, for which he pleaded not guilty. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. After considering the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the oﬀence under Section 332 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him. 5. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved that the accused has prevented PWs.1 and 2 from discharging their duties and liable for punishment? 4. POINT: The evidence of PW.1, who is the complainant and also the person who stopped the vehicle and has been pushed by the accused, PW.2, who is Sub Inspector of Police, goes to show that the accused was coming by driving while talking on cell phone and then, he was stopped by PW.1 and the accused pushed PW.1 and thereafter, when he was about to be taken he was also prevented. Therefore, the evidence is mutually supportive and both Courts have appreciated the evidence in a right perspective and there is no reason to discard their evidence and there is no motive for them to implicate the accused. Therefore, the conviction of the accused for the oﬀence under Section 332 IPC cannot be faulted. However, taking into consideration the accused has been substantially ﬁned and he is said to be in jail for two days and also taking into consideration the nature of oﬀence, I feel the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of ﬁne and period undergone is conﬁrmed while setting aside the imprisonment for one year imposed by the Courts below. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part and the conviction of the accused for the oﬀence under Section 332 IPC is conﬁrmed. The sentence of ﬁne imposed is conﬁrmed while setting aside the imprisonment for one year imposed by the Courts below. The sentence of imprisonment, which he already undergone is treated as sentence of imprisonment. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:02-12-2011 INL