IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYEIGHT DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 265 of 2005 Between: Doddi Ganesh Kumar @ Ganesh … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 265 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2004, dated 18-2-2005 confirming the conviction and sentence inflicted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Guntur, in CC.No. 6 of 2004, dated 31-3-2004. 2. The petitioner was tried for the offences punishable under section 292 of IPC and under section 4 read with section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, found the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under section 292 of IPC and section 4 read with section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under each count, directing to run both the sentences concurrently. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur), on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the conviction and sentence inflicted by the learned Magistrate as stated hereinabove. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the courts below have concurrently held against the petitioner and he confine his arguments only with regard to the quantum of sentence and prayed this court to take a lenient view . 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. It is evident from the record that both the courts below have concurrently held against the petitioner and there are no reasonable grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings passed by the courts below. Considering the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the conviction inflicted by both the courts below are confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment for the offences under section 292 of IPC and section 4 read with section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 is converted to payment of fine. The petitioner is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- (Rs. Four thousand only) for the offence under section 292 of IPC in addition to the fine which he already paid in the trial court, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the said offence. Further the petitioner is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only) for the offence under section 4 read with section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 apart from the fine which he already paid in the trial court. The said fine amount of Rs.5,000/- for two counts shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 6. Subject to the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 28-10-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 265 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 84 Date: 28-10-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L