IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 760 of 2005 Between: Veeturi Phani Kumar … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. Radha Krishna Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 760 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2003, dated 26-4-2005 confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsipatnam, in CC.No. 26 of 1999 dated 22-8-2003. 2. The petitioner was tried for the offences punishable under section 304-A, 337, 338 IPC and section 3 read with section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty 304-A, 337, 338 IPC and section 3 read with section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 338 of IPC and directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under section 337 of IPC, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200for the offence under section3 read with section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two weeks. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate stated hereinabove. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 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 reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by both the courts below and the same is confirmed, but however, the sentence of imprisonment inflicted is modified to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. However, the fine amount paid by the petitioner shall remain unaltered. 6. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal Revision is disposed of. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 01-10-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 760 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 4 0 Date: 01-10-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L