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. 70 of 2005 Between: Nallam Kondaiah … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri V.Nitesh Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 70 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2004, dated 24-01-2005 confirming the conviction and sentence inflicted by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, in CC.No. 261 of 2002, dated 24-02-2004. 2. The petitioner was tried for the offences punishable under section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri found the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC. The learned Magistrate sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under section 304-A IPC and further sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under section 338 IPC and further sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under section 337 IPC. On appeal, the learned Additional District and 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. 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 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC is modified to that of fine. Firstly, the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) for the offence under section 304-A of IPC in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Secondly, the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- (Rs. Four thousand only) for the offence under section 338 of IPC, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Thirdly, the petitioner is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- (Rs. Four thousand only) for the offence under section 337 of IPC. The said fine amount of Rs.18,000/- (Rs.Eighteen thousand only) under three 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 three months 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. 70 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 85 Date: 28-10-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L